DVDFile

After what likely seemed an interminable wait for Lord of the Rings-ites - of which there are millions - the extended cut of Peter Jackson's Oscar-winning magnum opus is finally here. Based on the legendary tale by J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring grossed nearly a billion worldwide (and counting), so it is safe to presume that nothing I can say will change anyone's mind. It's grand, epic, lush, expansive and... 30 minutes longer! Now more a miniseries event than a movie, Peter Jackson has added plenty of additional material and even a bit of blood excised from the original theatrical cut for this new version, which he has made great pains to point out is not a director's cut. It doesn't change the movie or try to "fix it" (a la Lucas); instead simply expanding its scope, providing a larger, more expansive look at the mythology and the characters. And it works. This is not a bloated vanity project, just a different take that is longer and slower yet in some ways better. Since I received more than a few dissenting opinions on my previous review of the theatrical cut of Lord of the Rings - and I'm still lukewarm on this film, Extended Cut or not - I'll have some fun and reprint it here now for you, followed by a few comments on what's new in The Extended Cut...

Elves? Fairies? Magic rings? A bunch of hooey? Sad to say, even as a child I had little interest in wizards and warriors and all of that stuff, much less hobbits and the fantastical worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien. Of course, I was aware of his epic saga The Lord of the Rings, still one of the most genuinely beloved series of books of all time. An inspiration for generations of filmmakers, it's odd that no live-action adaptation of such a popular and legendary tale has ever been successfully mounted until now. Many have tried and failed, and when three animated versions appeared and disappeared to little fanfare in the early 80's, many hypothesized that the epic would remain unfilmable until modern special effects techniques could match the scope of Tolkien's vision, or when a studio was daring enough to come up with a budget sizable enough to do it justice. I disagree. Like Tolkien himself, what it really took was an artist with enough willpower, talent and audacity - not to mention insanity - to pull it off.

Enter Peter Jackson. Long a fanboy favorite, New Zealand's finest has always been an underrated filmmaker, and despite hits both critical and commercial - the amazing Heavenly Creatures, the pop-culture pastiche of The Frighteners - perhaps it has been Jackson's gross-out beginnings that have unfairly ghettoized him as a crackpot obsessed with gore effects and little else. But those without such narrow preconceptions could see the raw talent behind the zaniness, and now with The Lord of the Rings trilogy - easily the most daring, mammoth undertaking ever by a major studio - he's blown himself into the stratosphere. Against all odds, this first installment alone has racked up a worldwide gross nearing a billion dollars, 13 Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, and a breathless sense of anticipation for the next two installments not seen since the glory days of Star Wars. He may not have won the Oscar, but he sure got the gold ring.

Indeed, it is Jackson's commitment to maintaining a dignified, consistent take on Tolkien's material that elevates The Fellowship of the Ring to what many already consider a modern classic. It's a complex story, and admittedly I was lost in the early passages. The opening montage alone introduces us to a bunch of rings and Middle-Earth hokum, and this is not over 3 hours long for nothing. But Jackson and co-screenwriters Frances Walsh and Philippa Boyens pick and choose carefully. Sticking close to Tolkien's original text but still allowing room for cinematic latitude and some minor compression of time and events, Jackson's obvious love for the material thrilled even the most demanding fans. (For once, they didn't subject yet another filmmaker to a no-win situation: Change too much, you lose, change too little, you lose, too.) The pace is also just about pitch-perfect, with editor John Gilbert expertly weaving the lengthy exposition, dramatic scenes, and action extravaganzas together so that boredom rarely sets in, despite the prolonged running time. It will certainly be interesting to see what Jackson does with the nearly 30-minutes longer Extended Cut of the film due later this year...

But as impressive as all the spectacle and reverence may be, however, I'm just not as sold on the film as are most of Tolkien's and Jackson's admirers. Like the recent Harry Potter flick, the almost slavish devotion to the material sometimes feels like a crushing obligation. There is a pomposity to the approach, a coldness to the characters that dulls the emotions, as if the special effects and the actors must move and speak within very defined parameters, never truly inhabiting this visually stunning world. Only Oscar-nominee Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins and Christopher Lee as the imposing Saruman truly come to life and rise above the effects, while Elijah Wood's fey portrayal as hero Frodo is all but crushed under the weight of the milieu. Jackson certainly combines live action, models and modern CGI far more deftly than Lucas's galaxy far, far away, yet there is little spontaneity or real joy to the enterprise. The action can feel stagey, as if the set pieces are almost too cleanly inserted into the narrative, right on cue.

As much as there is to admire, I have to wonder what is the point to simply creating a visual representation of a book. Jackson has the text and the visuals down pat, but there is little to love, and with such an unsatisfying non-climax, ultimately what is the point? Not so much a film that stands alone as just a warm-up for parts two and three, The Fellowship of the Ring might prove to be a tough sell for the non-converted. I can't deny that I had no choice but to surrender to all the earnest razzle dazzle, yet why did I feel so little afterwards?

So, what's new in The Extended Cut? Now running 208 minutes, this new version is best seen as a two-parter (and the two DVDs required to hold it all makes it that much easier to swallow). Serious Rings fanatics need only apply for one long marathon session - The Extended Cut is the stuff for fat asses and strong stomachs. Anyway, being a relative Tolkien neophyte and someone who only saw the theatrical cut once, off the top of my head I noticed a number of scenes and additions that have probably already been endless debated by fans all over the 'net. If memory serves, the majority of the additions focus on fleshing out the Fellowship, included extended scenes at Rivendell, in the mine before the "Cave Troll" fight, and a nice sequence with Galadriel giving each member a gift as they continue on the quest. As for the rumored blood and guts, I compared the end battle sequence, and there are a few noticeable additions of gruesomeness, but it is very minor and the film is still rated PG-13 - a far cry from all those spilled intestines in Pearl Harbor. In any case, this new cut of the film is not made for casual fans like me, but the diehard out there like you who worship this movie. If you love The Fellowship of the Ring, dare I say you just have to see this new version?

Comments (0)

Leave a comment

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
	Add Comment