So the reviews are in and the ranting, both online and off is in full swing. Tolkien purists bitching about the things left out/glossed over/(gasp!) changed… those that just don’t get it wondering what all the fuss is all about (“it’s got elves and magic in it, right? Can’t be any good then!”)… and the cinephiles analyzing every moment and pointing out where it comes up short.
I don’t think I’m going to go there yet. We saw the movie last week and I thoroughly enjoyed every moment. The epic’s done, finished up in fine fashion. Peter Jackson and his team did a fabulous job of realizing onscreen the characters, places and events of Middle Earth and I applaud the lot of them for it.
Are there flaws? Sure, there must be. But there was nothing in that 3½ hours that was so glaring as to pull me out of the movie and frankly, that’s good enough for me right now. Maybe when I go back and see it a 2nd or 3rd time I’ll find those flaws and think of ways I’d rather have seen things handled. (That’s pretty much the way I watch films anyway—the first time through I just want to be swept up in the film and experience the story. Later I can go back and look for the seams.) And, when the extended DVD is released next year (and I’m hoping for the full 6 hour + original cut, thank you!) I’m sure there will be moments, just as there have been in Fellowship & Two Towers that I wish had made it into the theatrical release. But hey, I’m only keeping the extended editions anyway, so for me, those ARE the Lord of the Rings movie. (And yes, I do mean "movie" singular. It may be broken into three movies, as the books were, but then, Tolkien never meant for the story to be in three parts in the first place. That was his publisher’s idea, since they weren’t willing to publish a several thousand page fantasy novel. So for me, it’s all just one long, epic movie-going experience.)
And, while I’m on the Tolkien trivia track (god, I’m such a geek sometimes) I’ve seen a couple of reviewers talk about how the movie resonates “in times like these” (a phrase I would like to be stricken from our language!) and I find it interesting because it’s the same thing reviewers were saying when the books came out shortly after WWII. (Many speculated that Tolkien’s War of the Ring was really an allegory for the war, though he dismissed this notion when asked about it by replying that, if it were an allegory, then his heroes would have used the ring to defeat Sauron.) Says something about the nature of the story he told, when it can resonate like this in such different times and situations.
And finally, a quick note for all the critics crying about how “the movie ends too many times!”… it’s called a dénouement, folks, and after over 10 hours spent with these characters, frankly, I think they’ve earned a few minutes of screen time to wrap up their stories.
So, go out and see this movie! It's the best 3½ hours you'll spend in a movie theatre this year.
I don’t think I’m going to go there yet. We saw the movie last week and I thoroughly enjoyed every moment. The epic’s done, finished up in fine fashion. Peter Jackson and his team did a fabulous job of realizing onscreen the characters, places and events of Middle Earth and I applaud the lot of them for it.
Are there flaws? Sure, there must be. But there was nothing in that 3½ hours that was so glaring as to pull me out of the movie and frankly, that’s good enough for me right now. Maybe when I go back and see it a 2nd or 3rd time I’ll find those flaws and think of ways I’d rather have seen things handled. (That’s pretty much the way I watch films anyway—the first time through I just want to be swept up in the film and experience the story. Later I can go back and look for the seams.) And, when the extended DVD is released next year (and I’m hoping for the full 6 hour + original cut, thank you!) I’m sure there will be moments, just as there have been in Fellowship & Two Towers that I wish had made it into the theatrical release. But hey, I’m only keeping the extended editions anyway, so for me, those ARE the Lord of the Rings movie. (And yes, I do mean "movie" singular. It may be broken into three movies, as the books were, but then, Tolkien never meant for the story to be in three parts in the first place. That was his publisher’s idea, since they weren’t willing to publish a several thousand page fantasy novel. So for me, it’s all just one long, epic movie-going experience.)
And, while I’m on the Tolkien trivia track (god, I’m such a geek sometimes) I’ve seen a couple of reviewers talk about how the movie resonates “in times like these” (a phrase I would like to be stricken from our language!) and I find it interesting because it’s the same thing reviewers were saying when the books came out shortly after WWII. (Many speculated that Tolkien’s War of the Ring was really an allegory for the war, though he dismissed this notion when asked about it by replying that, if it were an allegory, then his heroes would have used the ring to defeat Sauron.) Says something about the nature of the story he told, when it can resonate like this in such different times and situations.
And finally, a quick note for all the critics crying about how “the movie ends too many times!”… it’s called a dénouement, folks, and after over 10 hours spent with these characters, frankly, I think they’ve earned a few minutes of screen time to wrap up their stories.
So, go out and see this movie! It's the best 3½ hours you'll spend in a movie theatre this year.
Comments