The Ring Movies

You should know by now I am a dedicated Lord of the Rings fan. I just finished reading the three books for the second time in my life, the first time being almost thirty years ago when I was a wee lad. That time it took me a whole summer, reading the work in such odd places as up in a tree, on my garage roof, on the hood of my dad’s car, under the dining room table, and by the light of a washing machine. The second time it took me five weeks, read mostly on the comfy couches at my in-law’s down in South Carolina and the mushroom-colored giant’s glove that sits in my living room.

Anyway, Peter Jackson’s trio of movies that brought Tolkien’s vision to the big screen has weighed heavily on my mind throughout this period. How do I address them here? I did see all three, each immediately as it was released, in the theaters. I own only the first one, The Fellowship of the Ring, but I have not watched it in its entirety in at least six years. So they are not exactly fresh in my mind, though certain visuals do stick out in my memory.

Truth is, I am ambivalent toward the films. Thus, I do not want to rewatch them all and review them here at the Hopper, which would be one logical path to take. I think this ambivalence has to do with someone else’s envisioning of something so meaningful to me that there’s a very perceptible danger of it corrupting my fond childhood memories. Plus, I did not feel they adequately conveyed the sheer magic of the world of Middle-earth to such non-initiates, like my wife, for example.

Despite this, though, I do feel the films are a worthwhile watch. I’d grade them all solid-Bs, for what that’s worth. Maybe B-pluses.

So I thought I would simply list what I liked and what I didn’t about the three films. If you’ve seen them you might find yourself agreeing or disagreeing. I present them here in no particular order, starting with the negatives, if only just to get it all off my chest.


DID NOT LIKE

* Any of the actors and actresses playing the hobbits. This includes the leads. Not anything against them, per se, it’s just that they are not what I envision a hobbit to be. To me, they need to be more chubby, but not comically so. I don’t think the movie quite got them right.

* The casting of Ian McKellen as Gandalf. Again, not what I envisioned Gandalf to be, but two other points always come to mind here. First, am I the only one who ever noticed that Sir Ian tends to loudly and theatrically overact just about every time he’s on the screen? Perhaps it has something to do with the Method (I’m saying “Method” theatrically out loud as I type this). Also, I think I do have a beef with one of the central and most significant character created by the undeniable devout Catholic Tolkien being played by such an outspoken gay man. Ever see the Jim Carrey “I am a gay man!” skit on In Living Color? This is how I think Sir Ian must live out every moment of his life, on-screen and off.

* To continue in this vein, none of the other major character casting stood out to me as really nailing how I envisioned The Lord of the Rings. (With three major exceptions, noted in the next section!) Gimli, Legolas, Saruman, Boromir, Faramir, all the major Rohan – none matched up with the counterparts I’d been carrying around in my mind for three decades.

* The orcs were really weak. Bland. Vanilla. There is no disguising that they’re just Hollywood stuntmen in lazy Hollywood makeup.

* An unfortunate too-liberal use of CGI during the occasionally over-long battles and, perhaps, Mordor.

* “Sahm!” “Mr Frodo, sir!” “Sahm!” “Mr Frodo, sir!” “Sahm!” “Mr Frodo, sir!” – repeated a hundred or so times.

* Attempting to make Arwen a feminist warrior at the Fords of Rivendell. In the book, she just wasn’t there. A lot are uncomfortable with the fact that there are few strong women characters in the novels. I am not, in this instance. I didn’t like that the filmmakers had to revision the scene to stick a woman there just to stick a woman there. I would have been quite content with Arwen remaining as Arwen, an inspiration of ethereal almost otherworldly beauty.

* Way too much was crammed into The Return of the King. Was the movie 3 ½ hours long, or did it just feel that way? It’s the shortest of Tolkien’s three books, yet it almost doubles the length of either of its predecessors. Poor storytelling through sloppy editing there.


LIKED

* Three characters were cast accurately: Aragorn, Galadriel, and Arwen. I think Viggo Mortensen captured the sweaty, on-the-go action and nobility of Aragorn and gives the films a strong center worthy of Tolkien. Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler, different as they are from each other, are possibly two of the most beautiful women to grace the planet. As Galadriel and Arwen they imbue their characters with such beauty and strength that no post-modern testosterone-laden kick-a** action movie chick can hold a candle to them.

* The sequence where Galadriel is inadvertently tempted by Frodo’s offer of the Ring was done exceptionally well; to this day it still lives in my mind.

* I really like how the Ents were realized. They almost seemed Harryhausenish on the big screen. And the best part of the Ents was easily that booming tone to their voices.

* The model work, such as Isengard and Barad-Dur, was spot-on, as they say.

* That Eye of Sauron visual perfectly captured the essence of the Lord of the Rings: malevolent, searching, and merciless.

* Most of the background location and scenery, such as that we see of The Shire, Moria, Lothlorien, Gondor, the trek through the Dead Marshes, all rose to the occasion.

* The eerie suspense of Ringwraith pursuit in Fellowship was adequately captured. I vaguely recalled one sighting marred slightly by CGI, but otherwise it was creepily done.

* The balrog brought vividly to life, to me, something Tolkien kept vague in his novel and thus was vague in my mind. In my second reading of The Fellowship that image was the one I saw battling Gandalf on the bridge over the chasm.

* Gollum, too, was done to perfection. He appears on-screen exactly how I always envisioned him, and he talks in the same way I always heard his talk.

* The demise of Gollum is one of the very, very few things that the movie does better than the books.

* The prologue to The Fellowship focusing on the Battle of the Last Alliance and the cutting of the Ring by Isildur off Sauron’s hand was great. Ah, so that’s what the Enemy looked like when he had a body …

* The various monsters – Shelob, the Watcher in the Water, the flying beasts of the Nazgul – these were all very, very well done.

* Speaking of Shelob, I am at a loss whether Tolkien’s prose journey into her lair or Jackson’s visualization of it is more terrifying. I was surprised on the rereading how claustrophobic and sensually frightening those passages where. However, nothing surpasses that terrible surprised and anguished cry of Frodo as he’s stung by the great spider.

* The climactic destruction of Mordor was a good representation of something long vaguely visualized in my mind’s eye.

* The palpable despair of those outnumbered at Helm’s Deep in the prelude to the battle was very, very well done. So well done that even the wife has commented on it over the years, and she’s never read the novels.


So – any thoughts?