I'll need to sleep on it, and see it again, before I can accurately describe my reactions. Its certainly the best movie experience I've ever had. What's odd is that even though I had read all the reviews and such, I was completely unprepared for the sheer magnitude of the movie. It sneaks up on you. The emotional depth of the movie is such that by the end we were completely exhausted and wired as well.
Also, I had heard so many positive comments about the Nazgul and the Moria sequence that these parts, while wonderful, didn't impress me nearly as much as other sequences. I agree that its the less acclaimed performances - Galadriel, Gimli, Frodo, Aragorn - that left a huge impression simply because they were so much better than I expected after reading reviews. Simply put, there was not a single poor performance in the movie.
A few more random musings:
Sauron is terrifying, although the first scene of the eye, when Gandalf tries to pick up the ring, I didn't realize it was an eye.
Rosie Cotton is very fetching. How can anyone think Sam is gay? The scene with Frodo and Sam in the boat has such emotional truth, such humanity. I don't think I've seen a more touching moment in film.
I think Jackson did a wonderful job with the movie as an interpretation of the book, understanding the limitations and strengths of film as a medium. Since he couldn't spend time on the long "strategy sessions" - the Council of Elrond, the decision to go through Moria - or the "respites" - the time in the wilderness with Strider, finding the troll statues, the Fellowship's first journey south, Lothlorien, the days on Anduin - he compresses the story but recognizes, and plays to, the fact that this will cause the feeling of "fleeing from danger to greater danger" to come forward. The movie maintains an incredible sense of the precariousness of the quest that Jackson plays for all its worth, the utter hopelessness of the journey and the constant threat adds to the film greatly.
I would have thought that if you didn't know the books you'd miss SO MUCH, but my wife seemed to have gotten almost everything. The backstory of the kingship of Gondor, who Boromir's father was, what the Uruk Hai were, and so on. One part I wished had been included was more background on Balin's expedition to Moria. It would add much to Gimli's scene at his tomb.
I think the Balrog was perfect. The whip!
I think that the "crumbling stairs" scene felt misplaced.
I was SO HAPPY they included the eagle! But the butterfly was weird.
It ripped my heart out to see all those beautiful trees of Isengard ripped down.
The Nazgul didn't seem powerful enough, although I always had trouble with the Weathertop scene in the book as well and Aragorn's ability to drive them off. I wish they would have included a shot of Frodo in "ring consciousness" seeing Aragorn come up with the torch, looking like a great king. Where did he get the torches when Frodo had extinguished the fire? The robes catching on fire seemed a little cheesy.
I thought all the Arwen scenes were great, even the "she elf" comment.
I understand people loving Gandalf, and Boromir, and Bilbo, and Sam. But I think Frodo really carried the film and pulled off an incredibly difficult task, making you sympathize with the depth of the challenge facing him.
I also think the Galadriel scene "worked", strange and unexpected as it was. I don't think Sam's absence mattered since her opinion of him was hinted at in her introductory comments.
I'll post on this separately sometime, but I think that Jackson executed a VERY Christian conception of the nature of evil. Evil has a kind of wicked vitality at one level, best exemplified in the Uruk Hai, that can only be maintained through the kind of "stretching" that happens to the Nazgul and Gollum. My wife said the chilling thing about the Uruk Hai is that despite their evilness they exuded a kind of animal sexuality. Like taking the winter's worth of wood and throwing it on a bonfire all at once. The one piece that ran counter to this was the change in the Saruman plot line. It would have been nice to see him still as the symbol of modernity that believes it is possible to compromise with evil, to use it devices - orcs and even the Ring - against it. Since they made him a declared ally of Sauron instead that can't add this layer. Oh well.
2 other nice Christian allusions - Gandalf crossing his staff and sword on the bridge, and especially (very noticable to an Orthodox Christian!) Aragorn's blessing that is VERY reminiscent of the making of the sign of the cross. He does it head to lips, but it looks just like he's going to go head to heart, and the Orthodox and Catholics would finish it shoulder to shoulder. The prayerfulness of his countenance the two times he does it also very reminiscent of the demeanor of Christians when crossing themselves.
Poor Boromir! Those arrows must have hurt like hell. What a perfect death scene. I also liked the added scene with Aragorn and Frodo, since it gives Jackson the chance to visually demonstrate that Aragorn is a greater man than Boromir in that he is able to resist the Ring when Boromir could not.
For the most part, I thought the sound and score complimented the movie well. However, Boromir's horn... Yuck.
Loved that they included so many small but important moments that happen off-stage in the book. Gollum in Mordor, Gandalf in the library of Minas Tirith, Saruman's palantir. Great touches all. Can't wait for the Two Towers.
NOW I understand what a Freeper meant when they said "the Ring is a character." It would have been so easy to just cast the ring as the excuse for the quest, and forget about it. Kudos to Jackson for getting this part exactly right, and not coming right out and saying that the traitor amongst the Fellowship isn't Boromir, or one of the 9 at all. It is the Ring. Again, a VERY Christian conception of evil - the corruption of sin close to the heart of even those most dedicated to good.
Hope you all enjoy it over and over, and I look forward to many future LOTR discussions.
The Road goes ever on and on...
Being a hollywood movie, I really expected any Christian allegories to be glossed over or partially hidden. Instead of diminishing any allegories, Jackson really enhanced them. The one thing that stood out to my wife (who, again, has not read the books) was the transformation that came over various characters when "tempted" by the ring - Gandalf near the beginning, Bilbo in Rivendell, Galadriel in Loth-Lorien, and Boromir. That "flash" and struggle is our sin nature. We want fleshly power. Only Frodo seemed mainly immune to the rings sway, but not completely.
Then there's Gollum's absolute obsession with the Ring. That he'd go to any lengths to obtain it, and any depths to "protect his precious". How sin corrupts us and turns us into something hideous and ugly.
And we could go on and on. To me, the Christian allegories are as strong, if not stronger, than the actual words in Tolkien's book. Part of this is just the visual demonstration of the rings effect.
I cannot wait to see it again and share this experience with my daughter.
The effect overall was thrilling, though the Balrog too me was too large and too much like a monster and not enough like the demon of might and power Tolkien seemed to describe.
I think that the "crumbling stairs" scene felt misplaced.
It felt odd to me, too, but, on the second viewing, it was a treat for folks that knew the books too well.
I was SO HAPPY they included the eagle! But the butterfly was weird.
Radagast the Brown wasn't in the movie to tell Gwaihir the Eagle to give news about the Nazgul to Gandalf and Saruman at Isenguard. Gandalf captured the moth and told it to fetch Gwaihir. A pretty deft substitution.