Movie Review—The Lord of the Rings

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 12/19/01 | Steven D. Greydanus

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Movie Review—The Lord of the Rings (Opens Today)

12/19/01

		There can be no more fitting tribute to Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring than to apply to it the words with which C. S. Lewis acclaimed the original book when Tolkien first wrote it: “Here are beauties that pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a [film] that will break your heart.”
In This Article... From the Greatest Book of the Century Virtuoso Moviemaking at Every Level A Fundamentally Religious & Catholic Work

From the Greatest Book of the Century

J.R.R. Tolkien’s wildly popular epic masterpiece The Lord of the Rings has been repeatedly hailed in surveys as the greatest book of the 20th century — over the sour objections of snarky literati unjustly deriding it as “escapist” and “adolescent,” damning it for its unconcealed lack of interest in such things as introspective character exploration, sex, and, in short, everything that the literati have decided is important and must be dealt with in any literary work that they are going to take seriously.

This peevish critical Tolkien-bashing has been cheerfully and solidly rebutted by more appreciative critics and scholars, among them Tolkien’s successor at Oxford, philologist T. A. Shippey (J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century). Other recent works have focused on the significance of Tolkien’s world as a work of serious mythopoeia and religious imagination (for example, Joseph Pearce’s J.R.R. Tolkien: Man and Myth and Tolkien: A Celebration).

“If someone dislikes it,” poet and literary critic W. H. Auden once declared of Tolkien’s epic saga, “I shall never trust their literary judgment about anything again.”

I feel exactly the same way about the first of Jackson’s three films, one of the grandest, most joyous, most resonant, most richly satisfying films in years, a film that is an absolute must-see for both Tolkien fans and newcomers alike. (One caveat: Younger audiences may find the intense battle sequences and scary creatures more overwhelming on the big screen than on the printed page. Somewhere from ten to thirteen is probably a fair cutoff age.)

Like Tolkien’s book, Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring vividly conveys a sense of a great event ripped from a larger historical continuity, as rife in complexity and persuasive detail as our own world. Seldom if ever has the ancient theme of good versus evil been given mythic shape with such conviction and imaginative force. In fact, never before has this sort of epic mythopoeic adventure been successfully treated in a major film. Only Star Wars came close, transposing the melodic structures of myth and fairy tale into the register of science fiction.

Virtuoso Moviemaking at Every Level

Yet The Fellowship of the Ring not only has a specificity and moral depth lacking in Star Wars, it’s also a pure representative of its genre. In this film, an unbroken string of mediocre to terrible “fantasy” movies (Legend, Willow, Dragonslayer, etc.) has finally been broken. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Fellowship of the Ring is unprecedented in its class; it is the uncontestable Citizen Kane of its genre, and may well be the first of one of the most noteworthy film series of all time.

Jackson and his team achieve this level of credibility in part by not approaching their subject as “fantasy.” Like Tolkien’s books, Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring has the weight of epic historical drama; one takes it more seriously than Braveheart or Gladiator. Yet it’s also more entertaining and more fun than either of those. Virtuoso moviemaking at every level, it combines eye-swimming production design, vanishingly invisible special effects, screenplay adaptation both faithful and inventive, masterful combat sequences, and cinematography as lush and soaring as the subject matter itself.

What unites all these disparate elements is the creative visions of Tolkien and Jackson. Jackson never gets lost in his set pieces or special effects, but bends them confidently and surely to the service of the story. And the story is fundamentally Tolkien’s story: a story of glory past and evil encroaching, of humble and homely goodness pressed to extreme acts of heroism and self-sacrifice, of loyalty and betrayal, fortitude and weakness, beauty and horror, tragedy and loss.

These themes are of course not unique to Tolkien’s books — or to Jackson’s film — but they have here a tangibility often lacking elsewhere. In this story, when homely goodness is threatened by encroaching evil, it’s not some generically idyllic community being threatened, but Hobbiton in the Shire, with its round painted doors and well-kept holes in the ground, where the cheerfully unassuming inhabitants puff pipe-weed, eat six meals a day, and frown on anything smacking of adventure or discomfort. All of this is gorgeously realized by Jackson, who brings us to a Shire redolent in pastoral charm and rural beauty — a Shire we can actually care about for its own sake, as opposed to a mere obligatory target for the villains to threaten.

Likewise, when evil does come for the Hobbits, it’s not some vague or amorphous threat, but the Black Riders, the Nazgûl, whose very appearance evokes all the terrors of the Grim Reaper and Darth Vader and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Like a young child terrified of the winged monkeys in The Wizard of Oz or the Sleestak in Land of the Lost, we can’t help feeling as we watch the Black Riders that there are terrors before which resistance is futile and flight seems the only sane response. (Fans of Peter Jackson may be reminded of the dreadful hooded phantom in The Frighteners.)

This specificity runs through the whole film, from the infinitely elaborate, gracefully wrought Elven ornamentation of Rivendell to the endless rows of towering Dwarven columns in the Mines of Moria. The dark lands of Mordor and Isengard, too, are frighteningly real in their blasted barrenness. Jackson’s Middle-Earth is as rich in variety and invention of visual detail and as credible in architectural authenticity as Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace, but with a greater sense of cultural rootedness.

One of the film’s most extraordinary achievements is in its realization of the races of Hobbits and Dwarves, which stand scarcely more than waist-high to Elves and Wizards and Men. The actors playing these parts are all ordinary-sized, yet the illusion of size differences, and particularly the artlessly natural interactions — the clasped shoulders, the embraces, and so forth — are so persuasive that you quickly stop seeing it as an effect and simply accept it as reality.

Right in the beginning, there’s a scene in which Frodo (Elijah Wood) leaps from a hedge onto the wagon of Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and embraces him, looking for all the world like a creature half the other’s height. Their direct interaction is so bold and striking that it’s like the filmmakers are daring you to look for seams, just to get it out of the way and then go on with the story. How it’s done, I don’t exactly know — and, frankly, I don’t want to.

In this large ensemble cast, the casting and performances are generally excellent. Elijah Wood makes an oddly young and almost elven-looking Frodo, but he plays the part with such conviction that it’s all but impossible not to accept him in the role. (Frodo’s meant to be about 50, but the production stresses the Hobbits’ childlike aspects and apparently slower rate of aging.) His Hobbit companions — Sean Astin as Samwise, Billy Boyd as Pippin, and Dominic Monaghan as Merry — are equally at home in their furry feet: particularly Astin, who brings a total lack of affectation to loyal Sam. And Ian Holm, who once voiced Frodo for a BBC radio production of The Lord of the Rings, is spot-on as the aging Bilbo.

The Wizards are exactly as you always imagined them. Ian McKellen (last seen as Magneto in X-Men) bears a great burden as Jackson’s Gandalf, and his performance is a triumph; while veteran horror actor Christopher Lee — who originally hoped to be cast as Gandalf — is McKellen’s equal as Saruman the White.

Much pre-release fan concern centered around the portrayal of the ethereal Elves. In Orlando Bloom (Black Hawk Down), the film has an ideal Legolas Greenleaf. Legolas is indeed so quintessentially elven that he makes some of the other Elves look like posers (Haldir, for example). Fortunately Bloom has far more screentime than any other Elf, and he gracefully carries the weight of his entire race on his shoulders. I was about ready to believe he actually had elvish blood in him (even the name Bloom could be kin to Greenleaf!).

Some thought Liv Tyler (Armageddon) an unlikely choice for the Elven princess Arwen, but Tyler acquits herself admirably. On the other hand, Cate Blanchett’s acclaimed performance as the title queen in Elizabeth might have made her seem an obvious choice for Galadriel, the Elf Queen of Lothlórien, but it took me awhile to accept her in the role. (I would have preferred the more elven-looking Nicole Kidman; but of course she was busy making Moulin Rouge! and The Others.) Finally, Hugo Weaving (The Matrix’s Agent Smith) is surprisingly apt as Elrond, the elvish master of Rivendell.

For the Dwarves, John Rhys-Davies (best known from the Indiana Jones movies) makes an ideal, delightful Gimli, fierce and hardy. I don’t know how they gave “Sallah” a Dwarf’s diminutive yet sturdy dimensions — but I applaud them for doing so. My only Gimli-related complaint is that the film cruelly omits the dwarf’s most memorable scenes in the first book: namely, those between him and the Lady who unexpectedly wins his devotion. This omission might be partially mitigated by scenes in subsequent films showing Gimli’s fierce loyalty to his Lady; but nothing can replace the first book’s classic exchange about a strand of her hair.

That leaves the Men. As Strider the Ranger, or Aragorn, Viggo Mortensen (Crimson Tide) for me labored under the formidable burden of not being Liam Neeson, who’s been Aragorn in my mind ever since I saw him in Rob Roy. Mortensen nails Strider’s physicality, his toughness and valor, and his sense of his own legacy as Isildur’s heir: yet I got nothing of the majesty and authority that Aragorn could suddenly manifest. If it’s possible to put it this way, Mortensen seemed to me a better Strider than an Aragorn. Perhaps the later films will reveal the character’s kingly side. On the other hand, Sean Bean (Don’t Say a Word; GoldenEye) is dead-on as Boromir, noble but flawed.

A Fundamentally Religious & Catholic Work

J.R.R. Tolkien described The Lord of the Rings as “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.” By this he meant not that Catholic faith or teachings were explicitly incorporated into the fabric of Middle-Earth, but rather that the imagery and themes were shaped by his sensibilities and beliefs as a Roman Catholic.

Other factors in Tolkien’s life also came into play: his love of languages; his early youth in a Shire-like pre-industrial Warwickshire; his love of trees and nature generally, and dislike of engines and machines; and his experiences in World War I, where he encountered plain rural Englishmen performing everyday acts of great heroism.

But it was Tolkien’s deeply held Catholic faith that most profoundly shaped his work. The pervasive sense of tragedy and loss even in the midst of victory reflects the author’s belief in the fallenness of the world (“I’m… a Roman Catholic,” he once wrote to a friend, “and so I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a long defeat”). Yet he also saw evil as a corruption and distortion of prior and fundamental goodness — thus for example the orcs were bred in parody of the Elves, while Gollum is a withered Hobbit — and believed in the inevitable final triumph of incorruptible goodness.

In the books, Tolkien’s Elven poetry echoes the rhythms of the liturgy; the praises sung of Elbereth and Galadriel resonate with Marian hymnody and devotion; and the “waybread” or lembas of the Elves, which strengthens the will, has eucharistic overtones. The passion of Christ, too, is dimly reflected in the sufferings of Frodo carrying a burden of evil on behalf of the whole world, and also in the fate of one character who sacrifices himself on behalf of his friends, followed in the next book by an unmistakably christological plot development.

Those religiously influenced themes most inextricably bound up in Tolkien’s story have carried over into this first film, and will undoubtedly be further developed in the sequels. Others, alas, have been omitted, at least from the first film: There is no Elven poetry; no lembas; no Gimli singing his Lady’s praises. But Frodo’s long via dolorosa begins in this film, and the scene in which a character dies a Christ-like death is one of the strongest in the film. Both of these themes will continue in the next films.

It’s possible to find fault about other things in the film. The Council at Rivendell gets short shrift, for example, with inadequate debate about the fate of the ring (the film never asks nor answers questions such as: Why not throw the ring in the sea?). Lothlórien, too, is insufficiently established as a land where “no shadow lies.”

I mention these points, but I will not dwell on them. To do so would be ungracious. Peter Jackson took on a monumental task with enormous responsibility with this project; and he has delivered with transcendent brilliance. The Fellowship of the Ring is a stunning achievement for which I will ever be grateful. I can’t wait to see it again.

* * *
2001, New Line. Directed by Peter Jackson. Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan, Orlando Bloom, Hugo Weaving, Sean Bean, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee. Voice of Gollum: Andy Serkis.

MPAA: PG-13
US Conference of Catholic Bishops: Rating not yet available.

Some depictions of intense and sometimes bloody battle violence; scenes of menace and grotesquerie involving orcs and goblins and other “fell creatures.”

Overall Recommendability: A+ (Highly Recommended)
Artistic & Entertainment Value: 4 stars (out of four) - Superior
Appropriate Audience: Teens & up

For more information on this movie's ratings, visit the Decent Films Guide at the link below.

Steven D. Greydanus does film criticism for a variety of media. He is the webmaster of the Decent Films Guide website.

(c) 2001 Steven D. Greydanus. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

[Samwise]

Hope you got to see it. Hubby took care of the kid so I could go.

Review ping.

[holman]

Now, I have to admit the first hottie babe had that drug-induced cross-eyed come hither look in her eyes, but the second queen was a plot-damager. Bigtime miscast.

[Chi-townChief]

The movie was great and pretty much how you would visualize the book (Hobbiton, Isengard, Rivendell, Moria, Lothlorien, etc.) The only thing that I felt was missing was Aragorn's rhyme ("All that is gold does not glitter, he who wanders is not lost")at Bree. Also, I would have liked the ending to have stayed a little closer to the book's (the contrast of Aragorn's mourning of Boromir and of the failure of the fellowship with Frodo's and Sam's successful escape.) Great movie, nonetheless!!

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I'm curious why you ever thought it was a good idea to take your young children to this movie in the first place? I'd been watching reviews for the past couple of weeks, and it was made very clear that this was not at all a movie for children. PG-13 was pushing it.

Several reasons...

We do not have a TV (going on 5 years now) so I have not seen any reviews. I knew it was pg13, but I was not aware how brutally evil the orcs/trolls/Nazgul would be presented.

I just finished reading Fellowship of the Ring to my oldest. I simply couldn't tell him no. I just learned it was pg 13(not pg) last week. By that time I had been telling him we would go on opening day for several weeks. Originally I was going to go alone first to decide if it was appropriate. I should have stuck to my guns.

Wishful thinking?

It was definitely a mistake to take the younger two. Poor judgement, imprudent, and again, wishful thinking on my part.

[Snuffington]

Trolling LOTR posts makes you look far worse than it makes the film look.

[Snuffington]

We do not have a TV (going on 5 years now) so I have not seen any reviews.

Ack! You should have studied Free Republic on the topic. Literally dozens of reviews have been posted here. This is of course offered on the theory that 20/20 hindsight is better than no sight at all.

BTW... I would have taken a 9 year old under the same circumstance. For good or ill.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

My only complaint was that, while the movie succeeded in portraying the darkness of Moria/Isengard/Mordor quite well, it failed to portray the light and to a lesser degree the beauty of both Rivendell and Lothlorien, but especially Lothlorien. Lothlorien was given too short a treatment. The awe the characters experienced there was not translated well.

Of course, this is nit picking...

It is a superb film nonetheless.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Literally dozens of reviews have been posted here

Were there pre-release reviews posted here? By writers who saw it before last night? I missed them, unfortunately. I've read discussions of Tolkien (and Tolkien vs Rawlings ad nauseum) but nothing specific treating of the actual violence of the film version.

If I had it to do over again, I would take my 9 yr old again. He just closed his eyes if the scene was too brutal. We were looking forward to it too much to not take him.

Of course, now he wants to increase our nightly reading time so he knows the rest of the Trilogy's story line.

[Samwise]

And they didn't show how Gimli came to love Galadriel. And they didn't recite "All that glitters is not gold." And they didn't spend enough time at the council of Elrond. And they didn't show Galadriel giving Sam his box. See a pattern here? All my complaints are that there wasn't more, more! I guess this explains why I reread the books every few years--so I can have more, more. I will also see the movie again over Christmas--so I can see more, more.

What a painful, beloved quest Jackson undertook.

[Samwise]

Of course, now he wants to increase our nightly reading time so he knows the rest of the Trilogy's story line.

We're taking our 9-year-old next week. These kids have to handle things I never had to handle. They watched the Towers and the Pentagon get hit. They have anthrax scares at school. They have Columbine-preparedness drills. I hope the moral truths in the story help her cope. Maybe she can draw some parallels that will help her deal with reality--at least on a subconcious level.

[Harp]

"Starship Trooper was a lot better."

Starship Troopers was the movie that even Denise Richards' boobs couldn't save. So, ipso facto, Starship could be better than no other movie in the known universe . . . and it's a shameful waste of female curvage.

[Chi-townChief]

The greatest line, and I'm sorry I can't quote it exactly, is Gandalf telling Frodo that, in essence, you can't choose your time, it chooses you and you have to make the best of it. I'm sorry if I butchered that but it makes an interesting parallel to our own times and people. If someone has the exact quote, please post it.

[tank_sherman]

I agree with everything you said. Perfectly fabulous movie FOR GROWN-UPS and MATURE kids. The bad guys are monsters and way, way too scary for little kids or very sensitive older kids. I agree -- don't take a kid under 10! I think it would be ok to let them watch the video on a normal sized TV, but those horrible orcs, trolls, balrogs and particularly the nazguls on the big screen are enough to guarantee lots of nightmares. Video games with monsters in them are one thing, but the treatment in LOTR is very realistic.

Otherwise, this is truly a movie to see multiple times. Probably will go back tomorrow. I have no idea how much was spent on this film, but I guarantee -- every dollar was well-spent. New Zealand's tourism bureau should be hugging itself. The exteriors are perfectly glorious!!!

I give this film an A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++! After all the dreck Hollywood has been putting out for years, finally a real MOVIE in the grand tradition that is true to the source material.

[ecurbh]

ping

[Brian Kopp DPM]

These kids have to handle things I never had to handle. They watched the Towers and the Pentagon get hit. They have anthrax scares at school. They have Columbine-preparedness drills

We got rid of TV 5 years ago. My children only saw the TV coverage later at their grandparents homes, and it was minimal exposure, at most.

We home school. The only guns in our home school are the ones I own. There will never be a Columbine here.

The only ones here that would know if a threatening letter arrives would be my wife and I. The children would never know, and anthrax is not on their radar screens.

Kids can still be kids. They deserve it. Our kids don't have to handle anything we as parents decide they don't need to handle. I know, that's easy for me to say. But we make incredible sacrifices to home school, and we ignore a lot of harsh criticism for not having a TV.

How many parents have ever taken the time to read their child a several hundred page novel? I never would have or could have read The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Rings to my son if I had to compete with TV.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Please don't take my post #35 as criticizing you, samwise. It is a criticism of the entire culture/society, and my own frustration as seeing the incredible blessing of homeschooling and wishing all children shared in it (dittos for getting rid of TV)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Oops, misdirected that comment before...

Please don't take my post #35 as criticizing you, samwise. It is a criticism of the entire culture/society, and my own frustration at seeing the incredible blessing of homeschooling and wishing all children shared in it (dittos for getting rid of TV).

God intended children to be innocent. The pop culture robs their innocence prematurely, to their immense detriment.

There is an incredible fundamental truth to the cliche, "You're only young once."

[Gordian Blade]

Are you NUTS!!!??? "Starship Troopers" was a HORRIBLE movie. Not only that, it completely MISSED the spirit and theme of the Robert Heinlein novel.

I would go so far as to say that it was a parody of Heinlein. Too bad. I would like to see the following Heinlein books done with the same care as LoTR: The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and/or The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and/or Glory Road. And a bunch of other stuff also, now that the bar is raised. I hope LoTR is a big success and proves there is a market for quality SF and fantasy films.

[Samwise]

You are absolutely correct! Dang it...I can paraphrase, but I can't quote. I would hate to screw it up.

[nutmeg]

Bump to read later