Revisiting The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

[Dave Gray]

I have seen all these movies more than once, but I always preface by saying that I think they're good but I'm not even really a huge fan.  And I watched all of the Hobbit not that long ago and doubled down on that.

However, I revisited this first film recently and I think I just have to say that I love this.  It's so incredibly well done, overall.  I don't love every single decision and occasionally there is a directorial flourish that I find dated or annoying or overly produced, but by and large, this really is an incredible feat of filmmaking.

I watched the first hour or so as the regular cut, but when I picked it up with a friend, we decided to continue from the extended edition.  I believe that, while it's probably easier to understand the story more clearly in the extended edition, that it's actually not the better version.  There are too many shots that accomplish the same thing and the editing feels a little bit sloppy because of it.

The casting is just perfect.  Everyone is great.  No notes.

The practical effects are amazing.  The forced perspective and just using small actors selectively is totally seamless.  They did a phenomenal job with all of it.

The makeup effects are maybe the best ever put to screen.  The orcs look incredible, better than anything in movies today, and this movie is 13 years old.

And the film has a lot of emotional heart.  I was moved at the end of the first movie and they really do a great job of centering the epicness of a story on Sam and Frodo.

Well done.  5 stars.



All that said, there is once in a while, a moment where an artistic choice feels a little bit like it was done in Adobe After Effects.  It's nothing major, but whenever they show Sauron, they have this weird flame overlay that just looks dated and cheesy, like a high school production.  But the choices they made for things like when Frodo is in the in-between world, wearing the ring, are stellar.

And I just have a bug up my ass about "helicopter shots" in digital environments that are too sweeping.  The more fake the thing is that you're filming, the more realistic I'd prefer the camera act.  When you're "filming" CG characters in a CG environment with a CG camera and the camera starts to swing all around, it beckons back to a video game cut scene and I'm dropped right into 2001. 

Overall, incredible.

[Dave Gray]

I watched The Two Towers (2002) and my takeaway is probably in-line with the general filmgoing public.

This movie is the same level of quality as the Fellowship movie, but I can't help but feel it's just a little bit lesser, when evaluated on its own.  I think this is for two reasons.  The first is that it isn't really as much of a stand alone chapter as the first film.  The first movie introduces the world, brings everyone together and has a sacrifice and a small victory that sets our characters on to a larger journey.  But it does feel like it's its own story to an extent.

The Two Towers is definitely a continuation of that story, but much of the film feels like a side-quest.  The characters are all broken up and it feels like they're off doing their own thing -- the movie occurs in about three locations with three distinct groups that don't intersect until the end.  This isn't a detriment to the larger saga, but it does make this individual chapter feel like just a chapter, rather than a story of its own with a beginning, middle, and end.  And even though the first film ends with a "...to be continued" vibe, this movie feels more jarring when the credits roll.  Even the way the movie starts is kind of like a serialized TV show...."last time on Lord of the Rings..." and replays a scene from the previous film.

The other thing is that this chapter has more reliance on CG creatures and when that's the case, things are going to be hit and miss.  Overall, they're still VERY good, especially when you're giving the benefit of 20+ years of time, but there's still something otherworldly and "cartoony" (for lack of a better word) with CG characters.  If you make them too realistic, you hit the uncanny valley, so there's a tradeoff.  The Ents and Gollum both have eyes that don't look like a living, breathing creature to me.

That said, Gollum, especially, is a triumph.  For the faults, there is a clear performance with lots of emotion in his face and especially with the duality of the character that is rapidly changing expression, it's really amazing that they were able to pull that off.  It isn't exactly photorealistic, but it's emotionally believable, which I guess is more important.

In this case, I didn't watch the extended edition, and I feel better for it.  The flow of the film is just smoother and you're not stuck watching several minutes of approach to new locations.  I was slightly (ever so slightly) confused about a plot element and character motivation in the 3rd act (who was where, when, and why they did a specific action), but I was pretty much able to piece it together.  The last action sequence is a big battle and has lots of cool action.

Despite this essay being mostly about the things I liked less about the movie, it's all in relation to how good the rest of it is.  I was still very pleased with the result and will likely watch the next film in the following weeks.