Fellowship Of The Rings Comparative Movie Review

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

I recently saw Peter Jackson's film of the first part of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. As some Adequacy.org readers may not have seen the film yet, and may be wondering how it holds up to all the hype, I felt a comparative review of the film alongside this year's other fantasy blockbuster, The Mummy Returns (recently out in a splendid DVD edition) may prove instructive.

[editor's note by elenchos] A lot of boring stuff that I didn't read was taken out of the intro section and put into the body section where it belongs. I don't think I accidentally deleted any of it. If I did, sorry.

[editor's note by iat] I did read this and found it quite amusing, so I put the first sentence of his diary (which you hid in the body of the diary!) back into the intro. I'm pretty sure I didn't delete anything.

[editor's note by elenchos]OK, fine, maybe I'll start reading these things. But when I see a whole damn thesis paper stuck in the intro section, I just jump to the conclusion of cluelessness. Just as a lesson to you all, if you do it right the first time, no editor needs to come along and monkey around with your stuff, possibly doing who knows what harm, depending on which editor you happen to get and which medication he or she happens to be on that day, and how closely they came to the correct dosage that day. YMMV.

[editor's note by iat] You do realise that the intro is now longer than the body again, don't you? What does "YMMV" mean, anyway? Is it some sort of hacker jargon?

More diaries by Chocolate Milkshake

Setting: while FOTR is beautifully set and photographed, it is obvious to anyone familiar with geography that "Middle Earth" is actually New Zealand. The use of computer-generated imagery helps to give an otherworldly sense to the proceedings, but overall, the feel is incongruous: the viewer keeps expecting to see a flock of sheep or a couple of hoons cutting donuts in an SUV. By contrast, the outdoor shots for MR are mostly shot on location, and seem quite natural. Advantage: Mummy

Characters: no contest, really: FOTR gives the old college try, but the characters are pretty flat: a bunch of grim tough-guy men, basically. Whether Hobbit, Dwarf, Wizard, or Elf, they are all about as expressive as second-string characters in some B-grade WWII movie. As for the female characters in FOTR, the less said, the better: the eerie, android-like Liv Tyler waltzes onscreen, wastes some baddies, makes googoo eyes at Strider, and waltzes offscreen; one of those birdlike Kate women (Blanchett, Capshaw, Winslett, I forget) also makes a brief appearance, mostly spouting pseudo-profound dialogue. MR, on the other hand, features the always-enjoyable Brendan Frasier in a truly expressive role, ranging from toughness, to zany humor, to grief. MR also showcases the comedic stylings of both John Hannah and Dwayne Johnson and boasts the exquisite Rachel Weisz in a fleshed out, heroic and romantic female role. Advantage: Mummy

Fight Scenes: MR's skeletons on the bus and army of jackalheads is awfully cool, but FOTR has that elf guy Legloland skewering baddies left and right with his bow, and that big uruk-hai getting his ass whooped in that one scene is pretty cathartic. Advantage: Rings

Villain: FOTR has a disappointingly video-gamey Sauron and Christopher Lee in a costume that makes him look like Frank Zappa Trying to be ZZ Top. MR has The Rock as a giant bug. Advantage: Mummy

Eye Candy: MR's skyship and '30's era interiors are nice, but the temple and tomb sets are too "sound stage". FOTR gets the fantasy feel of its towers, villages and ruins just right, awesome without seeming fakey. Advantage: Rings

Dialogue: Again, no real contest. FOTR is wall-to-wall pseudo-mystical gibberish. MR is wall-to-wall pseudo-mystical gibberish lightened by a few genuinely clever wisecracks. Advantage: Mummy

Directing: Peter Jackson totally outclasses whatsisname. Advantage: Rings.

So there you have it. It's close, but the overall advantage is with The Mummy Returns. While The Fellowship of the Rings is still a perfectly enjoyable fantasy film, I wouldn't recommend seeing it too soon after viewing MR. It might prove something of a letdown.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.

	Fascinating (none / 0) (#1)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 03:42:45 PM PST

	This is the first review of LOTR I've heard of that didn't positively gush and compare the movie to Star Wars: New Hope. That in and of itself impresses me. The movie wasn't released in Australia until today, so I haven't had a chance to see it myself. I'm hoping we can scrape together the $20 necessary to get my wife and myself out of the house and into the theatre. It's fortunate that she's just as much a fan of Tolkein as I am. However, comparing LOTR to Mummy Returns is a remarkable insult to LOTR. Mummy Returns was not intended to take itself seriously, and succeeded brilliantly. However, it stretched credibility beyond reasonable suspension of disbelief (a hot air ship with turbo boost?), as well as catering to a more juvenile sense of humor than I was hoping for (a similar problem that Lucas defended in his Phantom Menace). LOTR promises to take itself very seriously, and as the subject matter does not lend itself much to humor I expect not to be laughing so much as spellbound. More I cannot say until I actually see the thing. I find that my enjoyment of movies depends greatly on what I expect from the movie, as compared to what the movie delivers. From Mummy Returns I did not expect a serious or credible plot, and I was therefore able to mostly enjoy the antics the movie delivered. With LOTR I expect a serious and dark setting, a tale of doom and heroic attempts to overcome evil. I've been told I won't be disappointed, but I have yet to discover this for myself. A troll's true colors.

	indeed, (none / 0) (#2)
	by nathan on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 04:21:28 PM PST

	It is a common mistake to assume that serious topics are "deeper" than comic ones. After all, Nine Inch Nails songs are much deeper than The Marriage of Figaro, because they're about pain and suicide instead of life on earth, the complex texture of abandonment and infidelity, youthful exuberance, and Figaro himself, the radiant sun warming generations. Hannah Arendt wrote that "evil cannot be radical because it has no depth;" this profound statement show up much 'heroism' for the bathetic petty antics it all too frequently is. That being said, I'm sure that Anal Dwarf will in fact be a wonderful movie. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Odd (none / 0) (#3)
	by Winter on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 08:24:53 PM PST

	I laughed much more during LotR than MR. As far as Lord of the Rings, i cannot recommend it higher- but i feel as though i wasted the $10 i spent on the ticket. This is because it was so close to the actual books (despite changing a couple small-but-important parts) that i feel as though there was no need to watch it. I could have just read the book again. Of course, Legolas was probably the best part of the whole show :)

	Compare (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by Right Hand Man on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 06:02:47 AM PST

	Compare each of these movies with a trip straight to the relentless fires of hell because thats where they'll help you end up. These ill conceived trips into fantasy land really aren't good for your soul, considering that they completely ignore the existence of God and instead rely on all sorts of black arts to pad their ridiculous story lines. Especially during the Christmas season, when we should all be rejoicing in the greatness of God and the gifts He has given to us, we should all be viewing something more wholesome. These motion pictures are an abomination and fans of the sci-fi genre in general should really consider following a more righteous path. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	yeah, I agree. (none / 0) (#5)
	by derek3000 on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 07:41:56 AM PST

	Check this out-- ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	ugh (none / 0) (#6)
	by nathan on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 08:30:31 AM PST

	I'd consider becoming an Objectivist, if only it didn't mean respecting Lenny. The thought makes my skin crawl off my body. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I know... (none / 0) (#7)
	by derek3000 on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 08:53:53 AM PST

	Peikoff has a huge chip on his shoulder. He'll be talking about things in generic, philosophical terms, and then he'll rant about "some drugged-up hippie with his eyes closed scratching on a piece of paper". Fuck, if this guy's mom needed open-heart surgery, he'd probably tell her to ask charity for the money. "Mom, stop being such a fucking commie. Didn't you save up for this?" ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Hmm... (none / 0) (#8)
	by hauntedattics on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 03:22:52 PM PST

	It's also true that in order to say "I love you", you have to get past the "I" and say those annoyingly un-Objectivist words "love" and "you." It's rather amazing how many people can't manage it.

	fuck objectivism... (none / 0) (#10)
	by derek3000 on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 10:48:32 AM PST

	my new sig contains my whole philosophy now. Also, living by the words "Fiona Apple can kiss my black ass" has helped me to relax and meditate more often. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Man are you guys dumb. (2.50 / 2) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 07:22:45 PM PST

	Shirikuso again. Lemme just say, you guys are the most WITLESS, BRAINLESS, HEARTLESS, EMOTIONLESS, IGNORANT, STUPID, BIGOTED, RETARDED, WACKO DUMBASSES IN THIS EARTH!