The hype will hurt the movies more than it will hurt me. I came through "Pearl Harbor" without a scratch. I can hardly remember the movie, along with the rest of humanity. Lately, the hype is with two "competing" fantasy epics which I don't think are competing at all.
I purposefully do not want, at least currently, to go see Chris Columbus' "Harry Potter" movie, not the least because of all the hype. The book is current, the film is "of the moment", and by all accounts, even from word of mouth from friends and acquaintences who have actually seen the movie, it isn't half bad. The feeling, coming from the collective consciousness of those who have seen it, say that it is risk free, and is faithful, and seeworthy, but not artistic, and individualistic. It, like so many other films today, seems to be a manufactured piece of entertainment, and I have no compunction to go see it.

On the other hand, the fantasy movie I felt high on my need-to-see thermometer is "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring", based on the first book in J.R.R.Tolkien's celebrated fantasy trilogy which, although first published back in the early fifties, was a watershed literary classic while I attended college back in the seventies. Although I only had time to read the "prologue" novel, "The Hobbit, There and Back Again", most everyone I have ever known who is "into" fantasy in the slightest, has read, probably reread, and embraces the Middle Earth kingdoms of the original novels.

Peter Jackson,the visual artiste behind "Heavenly Creatures" and the little seen "The Frighteners" shopped this project around for years before FineLine pictures agreed to let him film the trilogy as a series of three movies. He finished the project, quite a few years in the making, and it was announced by the media piggybacking the announcement of "Harry Potter". Both films were released in December 2001, and both seemed to be linked in critic's minds and pens. I can't speak for "Potter" and probably won't be able to until it's shown on HBO, or is released on DVD. Even though "LOTR:FOTR" is a movie based on novels as well, and has the same fanatical fan base (albeit a little older) I haven't read those novels, but wanted to see this film in a theater. I just got back. It's been out for a month now. The matinee showing was pretty filled up, and I must say wholeheartedly, that "FOTR" is a true classic. The film is not only pretty to look at, well acted, and ultimately satisfying, but it carries with it the weight of it's Universal themes, and it never tips over or falls over. Classic fantasy films are part of our collective consciousness. "The Wizard of Oz","Lost Horizon", "The Time Machine", "Beauty and the Beast" (both Cocteau and Disney), "Star Wars", the list goes on. It seems interesting to me, and I noticed this watching FOTR, that George Lucas probably wouldn't have had the inspiration for Star Wars without having read "The Ring Trilogy" and the film version as it stands wouldn't have been as satisfying without Luca's efforts behind "Star Wars". The movie medium fuels and feeds our fantasies, and even the first attempts at creating movies, like the films of Georges Melies in the early part of the 20th century, were fantasies. "Fellowship of the Rings" will stand the test of time as one of the premier fantasies ever filmed.

I've already given this film, sight unseen, a nod for Best Picture this year, and even though my personal favorite is Baz Luhrmann's chaotic but brilliant "Moulin Rouge", I must admit that Ring is right up there, and has probably a better chance, having had much more exposure, to get the nod, and most certainly a nomination. Like "Rouge", and "Star Wars" in 1977, which also was nominated for Best Picture, "FOTR" is not an acting tour de force, but a wonderfully visual motion picture, with universal themes and cosmic mythologies. While "Star Wars" could be compared to a comic book or a Saturday afternoon serial, "Ring" is more like the multilayered and awe inspiring fantasy artwork of Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo. Indeed, watching the movie is like watching a three dimensional fantasy painting come to life. The visual world of Middle Earth, if not similar to the landscapes in the books, which, as I have said, I haven't read, is at least similar to the fantasy landscapes which have been imprinted in our minds by the fantastic artwork of the above named artists and dozens more. (And probably specifically Greg and Tim Hildebrandt, Ted Nasmith, and John Howe, to name some who have specialized in Ring artwork.)

Although the "Ebert and Roeper" show reviewed this film some weeks back, I remember that Roeper didn't even like the film, thinking it overlong and laden with too many characters. Ebert nearly had a heart attack trying to defend his positive review of the classic. Obviously Roeper is clueless. Ken Turan in the LA Times gushed over the film in his review, but I've read also some negative press, usually alluding to the length. If you've read some of the reviews I've written about long films, I call them "asshurters" or "buttsleepers" because they cause me physical pain, causing my butt to fall asleep. I was so moved and intrigued by "FOTR" that I was almost upset it had to end, and can hardly wait till next Christmas to see "The Two Towers". Roepper claimed it "just ended" but the film (and again, I didn't read the novel) ends at exactly the point in the story in which it should, and left me hungering for more.

The painterly settings, the immaculate pacing, and the mythological grandeur of the storytelling all serve to indelibly etch this film in classic status. Although I said it isn't an acting tour de force, the acting is spot on, and all the casting choices seem to be perfection. Elijah Wood is suitably awestruck and yet solid and stalwart as Frodo Baggins, the hobbit at the heart of the story, who receives "ownership" of the ring, and leads the Fellowship in the quest to return it to it's birthplace. The two Ians: Ian McKellan as Gandalf the wizard, and Ian Holm as Frodo's grandfather Bilbo, turn in fine performances. Viggo Mortensen, who gets better with each picture, and Sean Astin, as the members of "the race of men" in the Fellowship, command each scene they are in. There is heart and soul to each performance. Even Liv Tyler, and Cate Blanchett, who have essentially cameo parts as two of the lone women in the script, shine in their parts. Literally. As each is introduced, Liv is a princess and Cate an elven queen, their raiments shine just like the women portrayed in the Frazetta paintings I mentioned earlier. All attempts to embed the moviegoing experience of watching this film into the collective consciousness of our shared fantasy mythology work to great effect. "FOTR", like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Star Wars" is one of those fantasies one doesn't tire of, even after repeated viewings. This is one wonderful experience, and a joy to behold.

All that said, I only give the film an 8 of 10. This is a high rating, but not at the top of the scale, and the reason I can't raise the scale that high has a lot to do with the fact that there were just a tad too many "helicopter shots". De Palma always included his signature "DePalmaround" in his movies, where the camera swings around the principal players. When a helicopter shot is made where the camera swings clockwise around the action, once or twice is enough, and after multiple times of seeing the Fellowship tracked in this way, it does sort of resemble a DePalmaround on overdrive. This convention bothered me. I didn't remember it so much this morning when writing the review, but after seeing the preview again, I was reminded that there were a couple of things I found wanting in this film. The other concerned the digital effects, specifically what I call the "marching armies" shot, used to great advantage in "The Patriot" and "The Mummy Returns". Digital effects are still so new that each one, when duplicated in another film, seems somewhat repetitious. In "Moulin Rouge", the digital effects and model shots, although "familiar", are used as colors on the palette of the total canvas of the film. In FOTR, the digital armies shots seem quaint and overdone. But these are quibbles with a technology which can only get better, and soon mask these obviousnesses, just as blue screen devalidated back screen projection as an accepted convention. I even cringe at some of Hitchcock's backscreen work. The fact that the new digital conventions are being used means that they will advance with use in film.

This is a must see film, is one of my "list of five", and would probably be my choice for Best Picture, if I weren't so sure "Rouge" will win. When the preview came on tonight, I decided I needed to see "Fellowship of the Ring" in a theater again real soon. That's entertainment.

 

Mikometer Rating: 8 of 10

'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring'
MPAA rating: PG-13
Elijah Wood: Frodo Baggins
Ian McKellen: . Gandalf
Liv Tyler: Arwen
Viggo Mortensen: Aragorn
Sean Astin: Sam
Cate Blanchett: Galadriel
John Rhys-Davies: Gimli
Billy Boyd: Pippin
Dominic Monaghan: Merry
Orlando Bloom: Legolas
Christopher Lee: Saruman
Hugo Weaving: Elrond
Sean Bean: Boromir
Ian Holm: Bilbo Baggins
Andy Serkis: Gollum

A Wingnut Films production, released by New Line Cinema. Director Peter Jackson. Producers Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Tim Sanders. Executive producers Mark Ordesky, Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein, Robert Shaye, Michael Lynne. Screenplay Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson, based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien. Cinematographer Andrew Lesnie. Editor John Gilbert. Costumes Ngila Dickson, Richard Taylor. Music Howard Shore. Production design Grant Major. Art directors (Peter) Joe Bleakley, Rob Otterside, Phil Ivey, Mark Robins. Set decorator Dan Hennah. Running time: 2 hours, 58 minutes.

 

Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins enjoys a little peace and quiet in Rivendale, land of the Elves, before resuming his quest to find the birthplace of the ring.

art images from the Lord of the Rings Fanatics site:
Review written and copyrighted January 6th, 2001 by Michael F. Nyiri