Wow.

That's all I really want to say. Wow.

What, you want more? Okay.

What an excellent, amazing movie. The Fellowship of the Ring totally met and exceeded my hopes and expectations.

Elijah Wood. Perfect. The youthful and innocent young hobbit, more despairing and lost the further he gets from the shire. I can see the darkness falling over him in his eyes.

Sean Astin. Y'know, I always saw Sam as more of a bumpkin with hayseed in his hair, but Sean plays him much more solid and grounded. I like it.

Ian McKellan. Perfect. Absolutely spot on as Gandalf. A lot of power, grounded in common sense and a joy for life.

Viggo Mortensen. Yeah, he's Aragorn all right. I've always had a bit of trouble picturing Aragorn in my head, because my high school best friend Dave used 'Aragorn' as his BBS nickname, so my mental picture of Strider is as a skinny six-foot-six guy with unruly hair and bad acne living in his mom's basement. Viggo does it better.

Liv Tyler. Much has been made of Arwen's bigger role in the movie, but I don't think it was so bad. She certainly pulled off the part well. Liv's normal roles are usually ditzes who speak with breathy voices, and this was a far cry from that. I did feel that the whole Arwen storyline was kind of tacked on, but that was probably because it was a wide diversion from the original material. Lisa hasn't read the books yet, and she didn't notice anything, so it's probably just me.

The rest of the characters certainly looked and acted the parts, but their screen time was by necessity limited, so we didn't get into the depths of the burgeoning friendship between Gimli and Legolas, or dip into Merry and Pippen's character beyond the surface level of the 'young tricksters'. There is a lot of depth hinted at in each of them in the movie, which I sure hope we get to see next year.

The real standout among the secondary characters was Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. When I read the book, I never was in awe of her, despite the main characters quaking in their boots at her awesomeness, but Cate dominated the screen from her first appearance. Terrible beauty and terrible strength mixed with a vast and nearly alien intellect. Whew!

Oh, and Ian Holm. When they first announced he would play Bilbo, I couldn't think of a better choice. I still can't. The way he switched emotions like flipping a coin... Now that's acting.

I'll talk for moment about the sets and panoramic vistas. It was fucking incredible.

I don't normally swear. That's how fucking incredible it was. I would have had to tape my chin to my nose to keep my mouth from falling open at each new scene or location.

Okay, let's kick Ebert's ass a bit, shall we?

Ebert said: "If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits."

Now Rog, old buddy, you can't possibly make comments about the difference between the movie and the books when you later admit that you haven't read the damn things since the seventies, and you browsed through them for an hour to refresh your memory before writing your review.

The story is not about hobbits who enlist people to help them; it is about hobbits who get caught up in events beyond their comprehension and struggle to emerge on the other side alive. An ongoing theme throughout all three books has the hobbits lost among people much bigger than them, who discount their abilities and insights, and are generally shocked when the hobbits save the day. Frankly, a lot of people consider the hobbits a nuisance at best, and drag them all over Middle-Earth.

Roger-Dodger also talks about the essential 'innocence' of Tolkien's work being lost in this recreation. First off, the Lord of the Rings was never innocent. There's a hell of a lot of despair, a lot of loss and suffering throughout, and even the greatest victories are touched by sacrifice and bitterness. The hobbits are permanently marked by the loss of their innocence, and Frodo never again truly fits into the quiet life of the Shire.

As way of saying how the movie diverged from the book, the Codger mentions that the 'The Bridge of Khazad-Dum' scene lasted only 500 words in the book, but was the major climactic scene in the movie. Big, fat hairy deal. When I read the book, those 500 words evoked that entire scene in my mind. The running, the fright, the sense of despair and crippling loss as the bridge gives way. There's a big difference between telling and showing, Rog, which you should know by now. Books tell, movies show.

I have to give Roger credit, as much as I hate to do it, for saying, "I cherished the way (the books) paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for." Fair enough. The rich tapestry of culture shown by the poems and songs in the books gives insight into everyone involved, and brings forth the fully realized history of Middle-Earth. I feel that it's an inevitable loss of the medium, but I do wish there was some way they could have evoked the same feeling. At least one song maybe.

Still. Even re-reading Roger's review today, a day later, I suspect that Rog-boy was afraid of praising the movie too much, of coming off as falling for the hype and hoopla, and thus he was over-critical of the movie as it stood.

However, I don't have those reservations. I loved it.

So there.

On Survivor: With all the excitement of the last while, I haven't made any public picks. I did call Brandon correctly last week, so... Tonight: I'm gonna say Lex is gone. He's getting too weird.

Mom Rating: 4.5 out of 5. This rating is more about how much I think Mom would like the movie as compared to how much she may like this review. Really, she loves everything I write, don't you, Mom? Plus I swore, which brings the rating down.

The Wait is Over

Friday Breaks and Toothaches

Take me home, big fella

A solemn pledge to try to post daily during the month of December, as both a gift to my readers, as well as a thank you for your support.