I didn’t like Arwen in the movie, but the scene is confusing.
Yes, Frodo is braver and more thoughtful in the book, but this particular scene Arwen invokes the magic that destroys the Nazgul, no? That’s different than the book.
Here’s the Wiki entry:
“In Peter Jackson’s live-action The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), his role [of Glorfindel] is given to Arwen, who even takes Frodo to the Ford herself and summons the horses of water through an incantation. In the book the water horses and riders are actually only enhancements added by Gandalf to the pre-existing flooding curse that was previously set up by Elrond, as explained to Frodo in Chapter 13.”
That said, I agree with MR that Frodo is wimpish and Aragorn absurd. The more I see the movie the less I like Viggo’s portrayal. He seems more like a male model acting tough, than a real Ranger/King to me.
But, now that I wrote this I wouldn’t cross a Hegewisch Dupa, so I agree with him also. ;-]
I wore out my DVD set of the extended version of the movies - so I had to buy a second copy...so I don’t DISLIKE the movies.
I understand cutting out Tom Bombadil, for example, and placing more emphasis on action. The books include a lot of descriptions, and the language used would have hurt the movies as well.
The one that grated hard on me was putting in Arwen as a fighter, and then changing her to her role in the book - inspiration. The other big failing IMHO was Frodo, who needed to be a much stronger character. I don’t think, however, that the actor was up to the demands.
Viggo doesn’t bother me as much in the movie except that I think the actor plays him (and in his other roles) as if he would rather be reading poetry and wondering why evil white men have harmed the world so much.