MovieChat Forums > The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) Discussion > It LOOKS and SOUNDS fabulous, but is not...

It LOOKS and SOUNDS fabulous, but is not without flaws

posted 7 years ago by Wuchak (8776)
23 replies | jump to latest

The movie succeeds on several fronts with a diverse cast of colorful characters, quaint beings and settings, moments of genuine wonder, dark ee-vil creatures, high adventure, thrilling brutal action, a superb score, magnificent locations (forests, mountains, rivers, etc.), and wondrous CGI sets. The film LOOKS and SOUNDS so great that it’d be sinful to give it a lower rating.

There are problems, however, at least for those who aren’t uber-fans of Tolkien. For one, the opening is hindered by prologue that is overlong and convoluted, not to mention unnecessary. The bulk of it could’ve been conveyed later via flashback, which they do a little bit anyway. Secondly, the story takes forever to build any drive. Thirdly, except for maybe Frodo and Gandalf, the characters are shallow and I didn’t care much what happened to them. Fourthly, main protagonists getting seriously wounded and everyone else expressing their melodramatic concern gets redundant.

Fifthly, there are only two females in the main cast (Liv Tyler as Arwen and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel); unfortunately, their parts aren’t much more than glorified cameos. “Mythica: A Quest for Heroes” (2014) cost LESS THAN $100,000 to make, which is a mere fraction of the $93 million it cost to make this blockbuster and the filmmakers knew enough to include a couple of prominent babes as key protagonists in the story.

Despite these negatives, “The Fellowship of the Ring” is a must for fantasy/adventure aficionados.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Well, I'm not a huge fan of LotR... But your reasons are mostly quite retarded.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

You're probably referring to the fifth reason, which is a matter of taste, I admit, and I can see someone rolling his/her eyes at it. While it's a valid cavil IMHO, it's also a bit of a joke.

But the other four are all legitimate beefs. For instance, the overlong, convoluted prologue is a bad way to begin the film/trilogy, as far as a cinematic adaption goes (and, like I said, that ancient historical data could've been conveyed in flashback later, when necessary). If you disagree, by all means explain how these criticisms are so "retarded" (disregarding the fifth one).

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Tbh, yesterday I was tired and it seemed way dumber than it actually is.

I still find your complaints a bit odd. I mean... The books are really long, so it seems logical that the movies coming out of it are long as well. And it sets the story just fine. You get the time needed to learn about the characters. I would find it way out of place to get it covered with flashbacks. I prefer a slow pacing in the beggining which becomes faster gradually.

But as I said, I'm not a huge fan of LotR. I find it really beautiful and masterfully done. But it's simply not really my kind of movies. It is long... Really long. But for me the beggining is far from being the problem. My major problem is the second movie which definitely was too long and made me feel like a filler which by the end didn't bring so much to the story.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

Thanks for the reply and no worries.

The trilogy was certainly an ambitious undertaking and I give Jackson et al. great kudos. But, like you, while I enjoy fantasy/adventure on occasion I was never big on Tolkien and his Hobbits, etc. I lean more toward ERB, REH, Norman, etc.

The trilogy was phenomenally successfully and gushing viewers normally give the films 10/10 stars, so obviously my opinion is in the minority.

As everyone knows, books need to be adapted to cinema because not everything that works in print works on the silver screen. I didn't think the overlong, convoluted prologue worked. It actually caused me to quit watching after 30 minutes the first time I tried to watch the film a dozen years ago. I've since viewed "Fellowship" twice and still feel the prologue could've been condensed and that material given more detail later via dialogue or flashbacks when necessary. Basically, just establish the facts about the One Ring and go right into the story. As it is, the narrated prologue is worse than the one used in the infamous "Dune" (1984), which was easy-to-fathom by comparison.

My second criticism was that the story takes too long to build up any drive. I didn't really start getting into the story until the four Hobbits make it to that village where they encounter Aragorn in the pub. That's like an hour or more into the movie.

The third criticism is that, while the characters are imaginative, they’re also shallow and rather dull, at least for people who require more depth to maintain their interest.Take Legolas (Bloom), for example; we never really get to know him in three movies. Or consider Aragorn: Mortensen is perfect as the noble warrior, but in the ENTIRE trilogy he probably only has like two full pages of dialog, maybe three. I never really cared for these protagonists. They're just too bland for my tastes.

(Continued)

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

My fourth issue was the redundancy of key characters getting seriously wounded and everyone else expressing their melodramatic concern. It happens TWICE with Frodo in "Fellowship" and the second time I was like "Seriously?"

Then there's redundancy in the trilogy as a whole. Take the Battle of Minas Tirith in "The Return," for example. It’s basically the same as The Battle at Helms Deep in the previous movie, except with colossal elephant-like creatures and the Army of the Dead. These two battles are similar enough that they could’ve been condensed into one conflict for the film trilogy. Or consider the hokey dangling from a cliff by one’s fingers: This was already done with Gandalf at the end of the first part and beginning of the next. Did we really need the entire trilogy to come down to this type of eye-rolling cinematic cliché?

Then there are WAY too many sappy “looks of love” between characters, particularly Frodo and Sam (I was so happy to see Sam get married and have kids at the end). Speaking of the ending, when the main storyline ultimately ends at Mount Doom with Frodo/Sam/Gollum I was thinking there was maybe 12 minutes left with half of that time being credits. Nope, there was STILL 30 MINUTES LEFT wherein boring goodbyes and “looks of love” are endlessly tacked on.

For me, "Fellowship" is easily the best of the trilogy, which I give 6.5/10. The other two have their highlights, but are laden by the above problems and excessive cartoonish CGI. Fans of "CGI porn" and Tolkien will likely favor this trilogy more than me.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

It’s such a bad way to start a film/trilogy it was insanely successful and led to two other films 6 if you include the hobbit

[–] janelsenor (2048) 7 years ago

The prologue is one of my favorite parts of the movie. It's actually the best opening of the trilogy.

[–] KD637 (488) 7 years ago

TLDR; "The movie has flaws, but addition of a couple of hot babes that I could jerk my wiener over would make it a perfect piece of cinema!"

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

Lol!

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

If you read the thread, I SAID the fifth reason was a bit of a joke.

I realize you were also joking -- and it was a good one -- but, if you're going to seriously respond, focus on my legitimate criticisms. Thanks.

[–] MyCousinMose (86) 7 years ago

Flaw #1- Thats probably a matter of opinion, which of course you are entitled to. Myself and several members of my family love the opening prologue. Its like 5 minutes long so in my book thats not overly long at all, and it was definitely necessary. It could have been told another way sure but I don't think that change would improve the movie.

Flaw #2- Indeed the movie does have a bit of a slow start, it doesn't pick up until the hobbits meet the Nazgul right before they get to Bree. Which is about 30-40 minutes in (just a guess off the top of my head). I suppose Bilbo's birthday could have been cut a few minutes, I wouldn't want that stuff cut but I can see where you're coming from.

Flaw #3- Theres a lot of characters, it may be a long movie but in the first film there wasn't enough time to really flush all these guys out. I'd argue that Sam and Aragorn at least have been flushed out enough to car about them. Boromir is my favorite character in the Fellowship hands down.

Flaw #4- Did that really happen all that much? I assume you are just talking about Frodo. He is hurt by the ring wraiths on Weathertop, indeed people make a big fuss over him then. He is also struck by the cave troll in Moria, people are all like "oh no Frodo!" for like 10 seconds and then you see he is ok. So is 2 times really enough to call it redundant? Or are you referring to other character injuries as well? I don't really remember many of those either.

Flaw #5- Ok so is this just a joke or is it a legitimate problem? I saw you said it was a "bit of a joke" and in my mind that means you are partly serious. If you're being serious then thats another matter of opinion, I don't think any movie should have X number of men, women, black people, white people, ect. I want as many women in the movie as their are female characters, and I don't need any in there just for eye candy.

I agree that yes like any other movie The Fellowship of the Ring has its flaws, however it remains my personal favorite.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

Thanks for the intelligent and detailed response. Actually, I like (don't love) this first part of the trilogy and gave it a 7/10 (more like 6.5), despite my criticisms. My main gripe is that the prologue was too convoluted and the first act was dull (albeit visually entertaining) and failed to pull me into the story. But, like I said, the second act absorbed me well enough.

Unfortunately, the two sequels devolve in quality.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

Flaw #4: Yes, Frodo is who I'm talking about and, you're right, it happened twice, which was redundant in an already loong movie, not to mention overly sappy.

Redundancy is a serious flaw in the trilogy in general, like the too-similar battles in "Two Towers" and "The Return" or the hokey dangling from a cliff by one’s fingers, which was already done with Gandalf at the end of "Fellowship" and beginning of the next. Did we really need the entire trilogy to come down to this type of eye-rolling cinematic cliché in "Return"?

Flaw #5: Yes, I'm half joking, but also half serious. Cinema is a visual medium and S&S has certain staples, which includes at least one ravishing female in the cast; Superhero flicks too. "Conan the Barbarian" (1982) had Valeria & peripherals while the 2011 version had Tamara, Marique & peripherals. "Watchmen" had Silk Spectre II and Silk Spectre.

I suppose one could argue that TLOTR in general is more innocent and I respect that. It's as if the creators said: "Hot women? We don't need no stinkin' hot women!" (lol)

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 7 years ago

I don't think there's such a thing as a flawless movie. Even the "great" ones lauded by both critics and fans have some areas that could have been differently.

I am a Tolkien fan and was decades before these movies came out. I had no problem with the prologue as it cinematically translated much of the overlong narrative flashback provided in both the prologue of the book and during the "Council of Elrond" chapter which delves into the backstory of Sauron. So, for the non-Tolkien fans, if they did leave out the prologue and just showed us Bag End with Gandalf's arrival you would have no clue as to why Hobbits were as small as they were or that they had any special significance to the story. You also would leave out the main story about the Ring, Sauron, Dwarves, and Elves.

Your criticisms about Frodo's dramatic sequences of feeling emotional, getting injured, and over all melodramatic tone are done for the purpose of showing his gradual decline as a Ring-bearer. Could have it been done differently? Sure, but you really didn't suggest an alternative.

LotR is not really a love/romance story so it's not expected to see a central female role that supplements a main character's arc, although Arwen and Aragorn's story fit into the overall narrative once you get into films Two and Three.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

The way the prologue was done was overly convoluted, a sure turn-off for non-Tolkien devotees. Blockbuster cinema has a wider audience than S&S/fantasy books, so IMHO the important elements of the prologue could've been detailed in the dialogue or flashbacks at the appropriate moments later in the movie. But, then, the film was a massive hit and viewers regularly gush over it, so what do I know? (lol)

All I was saying about Frodo getting injured and everyone looking on with eye-rolling mushy concern is that one such scene was more than enough for the first movie. The second time it happened I was like "Seriously?"

Jackson overblew battle sequences from the book to make the trilogy more compatible to modern audiences. He could've (and, in my opinion, should've) done the same with the female characters, like Arwen, Galadriel or Éowyn. Beautiful women are an important staple of S&S/fantasy and he dropped the ball in this department IMHO.

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 7 years ago

That's your subjective opinion, and as someone with family and friends who never read Tolkien they find the prologue the best part of the Fellowship. I know that's an anecdotal claim, but it is what it is.

Frodo's plight has been mocked, parodied, and run the ringer since the movie came out. Your insight into his folly-ridden predicament is nothing new 17 years after this movie came out.

I don't agree with your statement about the women in LoTR. You look at this movie through very rigid lenses.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 7 years ago

Naturally it's my subjective opinion: I'm sharing MY viewing experience with the film -- and the whole trilogy -- and what kept ME from appreciating it more than I did.

I viewed the whole trilogy for the first time last March, although I saw "Fellowship" about five years earlier. As such, I've never read or seen these Frodo mockings/parodies of which you speak. I'm simply pointing out a legitimately redundant and eye-rolling component of the film, which has nothing to do with the character of Frodo, but rather with the script. I don't have an issue with Frodo's disposition or quirks.

You look at this movie through very rigid lenses.

No, I'm just noting that the movie drops the ball on a common staple of the genre. As noted in my original post, even “Mythica: A Quest for Heroes” (2014) -- an S&S/fantasy flick that cost LESS THAN $100,000 to make (a mere fraction of the $93 million it cost to make this blockbuster) -- knew enough to include a couple of prominent ravishing females in the main cast. At the same time, I said I respected the trilogy's innocence and Jackson's decision to defy popular staples, even though it was a bad decision IMHO (after all, he already beefed up the battles for the cinema, so why not the women as well?).

Don't be so dour; if you love the film (and the trilogy) that's wonderful. I don't. It LOOKS and SOUNDS great for sure but -- beyond these factors and couple others -- it has several notable flaws and isn't even close to deserving the ridiculous gushing it constantly receives.

[–] Costumer (1825) 6 years ago

You say that it dropped the ball on a common staple of the genre. Lord of the Rings (the books) largely created the genre. (Yes, there were fantasy books before LOTR. But they had a different flavor and different tropes. Most modern fantasy stories, including Mythica, flow directly form LOTR). The films expanded the roles of the two female characters, Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 6 years ago

Lord of the Rings (the books) largely created the genre.

While the Lord of the Rings trilogy was hugely influential, sword & sandal fantasy -- or sword & sorcery -- had been around since Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom series (1912 and onward) and Robert E. Howard's Kull and Conan yarns for the pulps (1929-1936). The genre can be traced back way further to mythology and classical epics such as Homer's Odyssey, the Norse sagas and Arthurian legend.

But you're right that Tolkien added his own flavor to the genre.

[–] Costumer (1825) 6 years ago

As I mentioned. But I would posit that Tolkein did more than add his own flavor. He largely revolutionized the genre. The vast majority of fantasy since LOTR has followed Tolkein's stamp. Yes, there are exceptions and, in recent years, far more exceptions have been appearing. (which I think is a good thing. I love the Tolkein format, but no format should dominate a field. )

[–] Wuchak (8776) 6 years ago

The films expanded the roles of the two female characters, Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel.

They should've expanded them more as the trilogy is weak on the feminine front while the micro-budgeted "Mythica" kicked axx in this department.

I liked "Fellowship" after the boring prologue and first act (once they left Hobbitville or whatever). I also liked elements of "Towers" and "Return of," like the walking/talking trees and the formidable colossal spider in the creepy caves, but there were too many lame elements (looks of love, the cliché of hanging from a cliff, etc.) and the big battle in "Return" was redundant in that it was too reminiscent of the Battle at Helms Deep in "Towers." Note, for instance, the obvious similarities of the two stone fortresses.

But if you're a Tokien fan and of these films, that's great. I just think they're seriously flawed and overrated, not to mention absurdly overhyped at the time.

[–] Costumer (1825) 6 years ago

I'm afraid I don't support the concept of expanding a role simply because it displays a particular group.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 6 years ago

Book-to-film adaptations do it all the time -- as well as other changes (like diminishing a particular character or sequence) -- to reach as broad of a viewership as they can and therefore make as much money. Book purists usually hate this, of course.

For instance, in this "Lord of the Rings" trilogy -- which you evidently praise -- the hobbits and poetry were played down and the battle sequences were significantly expanded.