I've pretty much stated this in other threads, but I made a conscious determination NOT to rigorously compare the movie to the text.<P>If we were led to believe that Jackson's adaptation (and it is an adaptation, after all) was to closely follow the text, then there would be issues to be upset about.<P>As it is, I found the movie a delight. I am sure that my own interpretation would have met with the disapproval of purists.<P>How much would any of our interpretations have suffered if restricted by the necessities of commercial cinema. It is a record breaking achievement to be done at all. The purist's version will never, can never, be filmed.<P>I am hopeful that "director's cuts DVDs" will provide us with a richer movie.<P>But it is a fine cinematic adaptation. There is much in it that could not have been done better with unlimited budgets and teeming millions of purists flocking to the theatres for six hour movies...<P>As a rule, I am not impressed with efforts to critique the movie because it was not completely "by the book." Such critiques themselves fall far short, because there are, and will be, many divergences between (approximately) 9 hours of film and (I count) 46 hours of text.<P>"It's not just like the book, so I hate it and belittle all who like it" is a pretty poor critique.<P>All of that having been said, I did find somethings in the movie that I personally thought might have been handled better, but all of these are based upon my understanding of the books.<P>What a delight it will be for people who love the movies to read the books and discover an even greater depth and breadth of experience in Middle-earth!<P>(For what it's worth, I wanted more singing.)
|