I've finally seen it. I promised my family that we'd see it first together, thought opening morning was hard to miss. But I've finally see it, and it is ever so impressive! Not that I think it's the best movie ever - I'm surprised by the number of things that didn't strike me as wonderful - but it was very well crafted and once I got used to it, I liked it.

Continuity: The movie was of course not an exact replica of the book. How could it be? The tale is timeless, but it is also long and written (sort of) long ago. I approve on the whole of the changes they made. Taking out Tom Bombadil, for example - I put the book down for over a month when I got to that part, and would probably not have picked it up again if I hadn't seen part of the cartoon version which assured me that it would get more interesting. So, though I like the history and the powers and such touched on (for instance, Tom's not being affected by the ring), I don't mind that they took it out. And putting in that tryst between Aragorn and Arwen was not really inappropriate - gotta keep today's audiences interested, after all. As for the forming of those orc-creatures, well, I was amused that the leader looked like the Rock (one of the previews was for The Scorpion King, so he was fresh in my mind). But did we really need that much background? They don't spend nearly that much time on the history of the elves or dwarves, who are much more important.

Favorite Characters: Well, I still love Sam, though not as much in the movie as in the book. A movie could never ruin a character who started so good. Come to think of it, what is Sam's flaw? Don't they all have one? Being hasty, I suppose, for he certainly doesn't lack courage, kindness, and loyalty. And I like Merry and Pippin. They are fun. Pardon the analogy, but I think they may do for Lord of the Rings what Jar Jar did for Star Wars, and help new viewers not to be scared off. Thankfully, they do it without Jar Jar's annoyingness!

Casting & Acting: Arwen looked like she belonged in a business suit, and Elrond looked more like her brother than an old person whose time (in Middle Earth, at least) is drawing to an end. Merry and Pippin's characters deviated a bit from the loyal we're-going-too that was so reassuring at the beginning of the book, but their comic relief was a good background for Pippin's careless acts. I will never get used to Sam's sporting a 5 o'clock shadow next to Frodo's baby-smooth cheeks, but after all, Frodo hasn't aged since his 33rd birthday. It took time to get used to Gimli and Legolas especially - after all, they are creatures of legend, so everyone imagines them in their own way, and I didn't think of elves and dwarves as quite so human. Perhaps more translucent for the elves and stouter for the dwarves. The rest of the group took some getting used to as well, but those in the fellowship did mostly seem to fit their parts.

Scenery: All the outdoorsey stuff was great! Actually, all the sets were wonderful, even if just wonderfully horrible. When I saw Harry Potter, I complained that they moved the cameras and cut the shots too quickly during the intense moments (the quidich game, for example). I couldn't enjoy the beautiful sets and fun costumes properly. I was irked at the same techniques here (though the rest of the camera work was much better than Potter), but I'm kind of glad I didn't get a good look at the intense scenes in Rings, because they sure weren't beautiful! On a different note, I missed the beauty of Lothlorien, since we only saw a brief glimpse of it. It's part of the sadness - the you-can't-win catch-22 of it all. They arrive in the fall, and the Lady wishes they could have seen it in the spring, adding that it will likely never have another. If Frodo fails, the dark lord will destroy it. If he succeeds, the elven ring that she wears and uses to keep her land as it is, will loose its power, and the time of the elves will draw to a close in Middle Earth. That's why he hears her say that his are the footsteps of doom. I am drawn to that in Tolkien, the admittance that change is inevitable and everything isn't necessarily going to end happily-ever-after. Or that happily-ever-after doesn't mean status quo.

Effects: Although I contend that they spent way too much time there, I appreciated the quality of Isengard. (Tolkien doesn't go there in the first volume at all, just a short bit where Gandalf relates to Frodo what happened to him.) It was all so seemless and well-done that nothing else really jumps to mind.

PG-13: OK, I don't usually go see movies with this rating. And when (or if) I acquire this on DVD, I won't watch it much. I spent too much time scared out of my wits. I can only imagine poor children who have never read it but whose parents drag them to it. Anyone who was thinking of taking those under 13: Don't! I'm almost 22, and it was enough to give me nightmares. I actually covered my eyes once, and I knew how it was going to end. I feel sure that Tolkien never saw the violence of the battles as being nearly so important to the show.

Details: This is the only volume I've read twice, so I'll notice a few details that I would not if it were The Two Towers or The Return of the King (of course, by the time they come out...). A few of these are: Shouldn't they have mentioned the re-forging of Aragorn's blade in Rivendell? And why did Frodo see Sam's vision in the mirror of Galadriel? (I know, to save time, and since we don't really know Sam as the lover of nature - they also skipped the Lady's gift to him of soil and a seed...and rope.) I wish they'd shown Legolas and Gimli bonding in Lothlorien; I feel that their friendship is important. I'll be sad if it's never mentioned/shown, and annoyed if it just appears without explaination. What was the deal with Sauron at the beginning? I'd never pictured him with a body, especially not with one that looked like a comic book villan. I know he had to have a finger, but it was so ridiculous! Another ommission: they didn't include "Hey Diddle Diddle." I wouldn't really expect them to keep it - they cut much larger things in the interest of time - but I would like to have a tune to go with it. I would like to have dared the composer to put this meter to music:
There was an inn, a merry old inn,
Beneath an old grey hill.
And there they brew a beer so brown
That the Man in the Moon himself came down
One night to drink his fill.
I wrote a poem once in that style for an assignment, but I've no idea what kind of melody it goes with!

Franchise: LotR Tarot Cards?!?!? Tolkien must be turning in his grave. If you didn't know, he was a staunch Catholic, and he wrote these books from a Christian world view. For any who have compared it to things like Harry Potter, give it another look. (The book, that is, not today's franchise.) Notice how in Rings they don't use the ring of power. Things that are evil are evil, and cannot be used for good. To use Sauron's power to defeat the person of Sauron would only create another like him. They want to get rid of the evil, not just the person. Harry Potter would have had that ring on in a flash; as long as he beats the bad guy, the ends justify the means, whether that be breaking curfew, using forbidden books, lying, stealing, going off campus without permission, cheating, lying some more... He's just like the one he's trying to defeat. I've written an article for my school's newspaper on the whole HP phenomonon, which I will post soon. Anyway, I'm wishing that the LotR franchise had someone in charge that shares the author's vision.

That's it for now; let me know what you think of the movie, and whether you agree or disagree with me (nicely, please!). Thanks and God bless.