A meek hobbit of the Shire and eight companions set out on a journey to
Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring and the dark lord Sauron.
Director:
Peter Jackson
Writers:
J.R.R. Tolkien (novel),
Fran Walsh (screenplay), 2 more credits »
Stars:
Elijah Wood,
Ian McKellen,
Orlando Bloom |
See full cast and crew »
Storyline
An ancient Ring thought lost for centuries has been found, and through a
strange twist in fate has been given to a small Hobbit named Frodo.
When Gandalf discovers the Ring is in fact the One Ring of the Dark Lord
Sauron, Frodo must make an epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to
destroy it! However he does not go alone. He is joined by Gandalf,
Legolas the elf, Gimli the Dwarf, Aragorn, Boromir and his three Hobbit
friends Merry, Pippin and Samwise. Through mountains, snow, darkness,
forests, rivers and plains, facing evil and danger at every corner the
Fellowship of the Ring must go. Their quest to destroy the One Ring is
the only hope for the end of the Dark Lords reign!
Lord Of The Rings Movies Reviews
I
think it is important to remember that Peter Jackson took up this film
not in order just to make a film of `The Lord of the Rings' but because
he wanted to make a 'fantasy just like the `The Lord of the Rings'" as
he himself put it. After repeating that phrase on a number of occasions
the question popped into his mind: "Well, why not the `The Lord of the
Rings' itself?". In doing this he, of course, set himself an enormous
challenge: he had to make a really good `fantasy' film, one which would
stand on its own and be true to what he had originally wanted to do but
he would also, and here the task he had set himself was enormous, be
true to the original book and to make a film which the legions of people
who have loved this book would feel happy with. In the latter task he
was certainly not helped by the author or the book: Tolkein, it would
seem, hated cinema. The book itself is `HUGE': this was not going to be
the kind of task that the James Ivory team set themselves, or Scorsese
nor the kind of task facing Branagh with Hamlet; nor was it going to be
like the puny task that faced Columbus with `Harry Potter' who had the
bigger budget ($130 million for one film as compared with Peter Jackson
with $300m for three).
I have just seen the first `volume' and
can say without hesitation that he has succeeded in both his goals. It
is not the book but a reading of the book which is inventive and
fascinating. It is the kind of experience that makes you want to go
back and reread the whole thing in the light of the emphases that
Jackson has brought to the story. He focuses on the corrupting
influence of the ring and, through this focus, the character of the
chief protagonists of the story are revealed. Clearly those most
tempted by it are mortal men (Boromir and even, in one moment, Aragorn),
those who already have power (Elrond - `The ring cannot stay here';
Galadriel; Gandalf and Saruman), and, of course, those who would not
normally desire it but who by accident become ring bearers - Gollum,
Bilbo, Frodo. I can see why, in this reading, Jackson decided to leave
out the Bombadil episode. Bombadil, like the Balrog, is beyond the ring
but the latter is important to the unfolding of the story of the fates
of all the characters, Bombadil isn't.
It is a miracle of this
reading of the first volume of the book that one can see where Jackson
is going and one can get a feel of how the reading is going to unfold.
In a sense, Jackson's real trial - as far as those who know the books
are concerned - will come with the second film in the series. He has
lived up to our expectation by creating even bigger ones: how can he
handle the story of the chase andrescue of Merry and Pippin, the
storming of Isengard etc - stories which don't really add much to the
core theme that is emerging. Or is he now going to add the theme of the
great contest of good versus evil to the unfolding reading?
All
of this points to the fact that the film, even though it is a feast of
special effects, focuses on character. And this also explains why
Jackson chose the actors he did for their roles: they are not `big'
names - no `Sean Connery', no `Alan Rickman', no `Brad Pitt', no `Sam
Neill'etc. He didn't want them getting in the way of the story of
character. Ian McKellan's talents, in particular, are used to tell a
large proportion of the story: an enormous amount is conveyed simply
through his facial expressions and even by the language of his body. The
other miracle in all of this is Elijah Wood. Like many others, when I
first heard of Jackson's choice, I groaned: but Wood has been
extraordinary. He brings, as one friend said, a strange kind of
androgyny to the role and this is just perfect. McKellan has already
been knighted: give Wood the Oscar.
And then there is Middle
Earth: this is, as someone put it, another character in the story and
the New Zealand landscape, digitally enhanced on occasion, lives up to
its role too.
Enough. See this film! Greatest film ever made?
How can one make a claim like that! Silly really; as silly as claiming
that `The Lord of the Rings' is the greatest book ever written. Can't
one simply love a story, enjoy reading it a number of times amd lose
oneself in it. One CAN claim that it is the greatest work in its genre
as is the film.
