Peter Jackson, 2001.
Interpretación: Elijah Wood (Frodo), Ian Mckellen (Gandalf), Liv Tyler (Arwen), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn), Sean Astin (Sam), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), John Rhys-Davies (Gimli), Billy Boyd (Pippin), Dominic Monaghan (Merry), Orlando Bloom (Legolas), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Sean Bean (Boromir), Ian Holm (Bilbo), Andy Serkis (Sméagol).
* *
Sólo para forofos del libro
Yo no me quejo excesivamente cuando me aburro en una película. Incluso lo llevo bien cuando me dan tres horas de música new age y elfos y enanos diciendo cosas solemnes porque se creen que estan hablando de algo importante y a mi lo único que me parece importante es saber cuanto les queda para acabar. Esta es una película aburrida y pretenciosa como tantas otras, eso no es especialmente grave.
Lo que me parece más grave es que me la hayan anunciado con tanto bombo, que la crítica sea, hasta ahora, unánime elogiandola, o que para hacer una cosa tan aburrida dediquen tanto esmero y despilfarro.
No entiendo las tres horas. He leído a muchos comentarirstas decir que hacían falta para reproducir el relato, pero en realidad se malgastan en planos lentísimos de la expresión de Frodo, de la música de Enya, de paisajes sin fin. Si un buen narrador hubiera cogido esta historia la hubiera condensado, y hubiera recurrido a la complicidad del espectador. Jackson ha hecho un documental en el que, a falta de una voz en off que nos explique es es eso de la Tierra Media, los personajes se dedican todo el rato a hacer de cicerones para que entendamos las miles de historias que se cruzan unas con otras. Cualquier buen director sabe lo peligroso que es tratar a un espectador como un imbécil al que hay que explicarle las cosas.
La historia no tiene gracia. Jackson se la tomó como una tarea. Igual que uno se pone con las matemáticas o el alemán él se sacrificó con el largo relato, y no ha sabido esconder en su caligrafía el esfuerzo y la pesadez que para él supuso. Para Tolkien, era mucho más agradable ir inventándose sus personajes, y eso se nota en el relato, para Jackson ha consistido en la penosa trascripción que no molestara a los innumerables lectores, ni a los manirrotos productores.
Se trata, desde la primera escena, de emocionar al espectador con peligros y de premiarle con la conclusión feliz de cada hazaña. Pero uno como espectador tiene que hacer mucho esfuerzo para dejarse llevar por este ritmo o para enganchar con unos personajes tan poco humanos. La incensante entrada de desconocidos en el relato, que ya eran conocidos para otros, pero no para nosotros, son otro obstáculo para conectar con ellos. Uno siente que en cualquier momento puede ocurrir cualquier cosa, simplemente porque a los creadores les daba la gana. Los momentos de mayor peligro son exagerados por una música estentórea que gracias al dolby lo sacan a uno del asiento, y a veces de sus casillas, pero que hablan poco de virtudes cinematográficas. Cualquiera sabe subirle el sonido a una película. El mundo del mal es feo y sus sonidos son chirriantes. Un buen director no hubiera recurrido a recursos tan fáciles, como hacer que los caballos de los malos fueran doblados por los pajarracos de Parque Jurásico III.
Los niños son los mejores jueces de estos resultados porque no dejan que su juicio se empañe con voces externas. El niño que se sentaba junto a mi se pasó la película suplicando a su madre que acabara y que le dejara salir antes. Yo, en mi fuero interno, le hacía la misma súplica al director.
El señor de los Anillos Roger Ebert
"Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.
Settling down with my book, the one-volume, 1969 India paper edition, I read or skimmed for an hour or so. It was as I remembered it. The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, going places, being places, and going on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations.
"The Lord of the Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which provides the purpose for the journey, serves Tolkien as the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic quest while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins' neck.
That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours.
CINEMANIACOS "El señor de los anillos" El Señor de los Anillos NO es la historia de una guerra en un mundo fantástico. Eso es sólo el decorado, el telón de fondo; la verdadera historia que se cuenta en El Señor de los Anillos es el viaje interior de sus personajes. "Has crecido, mediano" dirá Saruman al resultar vencido en la comarca, y esa es la clave principal del libro; el proceso de maduración, que es especialmente evidente en los hobbits y en Aragorn.
WWW.CRITICAS DE CINE.COM :EL SEÑOR DE LOS ANILLOS: "EL VUELO DE LA MARIPOSA" (5/10) Tan difícil como encontrar erotismo en una película porno es descubrir en esta historia un trazo de lo fantástico: tan inmersa está en ese mundo que el espectador no es capaz de encontrar un contraste en el que poder apoyar el pie en búsqueda de esa supuesta magia.
El señor de los anillos ***** Enrique Colmena [
CRITICALIA] Todo en este primer segmento del que se adivina ya legendaria saga cinematográfica es grandioso: no sólo los espléndidos decorados naturales, rodados en Nueva Zelanda, o los artificiales, con frecuencia imaginados en el disco duro de un ordenador, o las extraordinarias caracterizaciones de medianos, elfos, enanos, orcos y demás fauna tolkieniana. Es, sobre todo, el magnífico ritmo narrativo que prácticamente no da respiro
Lord of the Rings | 12/21/01: Dorkopolis Foro de Mr. Cranky.
Does the prospect of watching elves, warriors and wizards talk and talk and talk, interrupted by seven or eight nearly identical battle/peril sequences appeal to you? If you liked Willow, Legend, Dune, Spawn, Gladiator it's pretty much the same thing. If you liked Star Wars (which singlehandedly ruined movies) you'll like this garbagy sermon. George Lucas stole most of Star Wars from this. This movie has the same things wrong with it that all costly blockbusters do. They're too expensive to risk being original so you get a lot of scenes that barely mask their origins in previous blockbusters. You get thrill-ride special effects sequences (that aren't very thrilling) in place of any really engaging ideas. Faux-profundity drips from the script like gravy. A script like this is for people who resent having to find meaning themselves and just want to be told what a movie means. Then they can declare it "art" because of it's pseudo-poetic pretensions (Spawn, Final Fantasy) and it's hack Karl Orff ripoff score. I doubt you'll remember a single line from it after you leave. It lacks subtlety, a unifying idea, a volume- knob, anything entertaining or challenging etc. This is a tedious by-the-books filmed book. An overwrought score attempts to make you feel emotions that the script has neglected. You'd have to be under five to miss any of the supposed "allegorical" meaning here. A huge percentage of webkid/Tolkein fans saw it the first two days and have front-loaded positive reviews acros the web. Hopefully the second wave of opinions will push the title off of top ten lists where it does not deserve to be. This is not the worst movie ever made but it is utterly mediocre with lazy scripting & visualization; a catalog of the ever-lowering standards that became accepatable in movies over the last decade of the twentieth century. There is little that's unique or memorable in this movie. The chases in this movie look exactly like what chases have looked like in films for seventy years.
There are plenty of early warning signs that it's a lemon: Narration that obfuscates and embroiders before you even get your bearings (remember Dune?). It tells you things instead of showing them to you. Leaden lines of expository dialogue. Every fifteen minutes someone spouts "We're nearing the (blank) of (blank) i.e, the Pit of Shimmwatz, the Caves of Killjoy, the Chasm of Infinite Boredom, etc... The names are unimportant and muffled but the pattern is unintentionally comical. It's just an arbitrary sequence of events that occur along the path to a goal, which is never even reached ( ! ). It has no dramatic arc.
Whether this journey went on for 90 minutes or 3 hours makes no difference to fans because the generation that thinks Star Wars is a good movie doesn't realize that SW chucked pacing, character development or even coherent storytelling. Hopefully digital epics will wear out their welcome much the same way the pre-digital epics from the fifties and sixties did. It's not good that actors are capable of reading a script like this and thinking it's good, but it's worse that a pre-hyped audience is waiting to call it a masterpiece. This movie is junk. It's really depressing that people could mistake this for even an adequate movie.
Tolkein fans are gushing over it because they bring feelings (established while reading the book) with them and project them onto the movie. But you get the sense that these people would think a film about three people sitting around talking about hobbits would be a masterpiece too. If you're interested in a movie and have no standards anything can be called a masterpiece. But, whether a director has suitably embalmed a book is not decent criteria for declaring a film a masterpiece. The geeks who are saying so have no higher goal for a movie than that it be made from a book they love. The kewl visuals resembling the understimulating CD-ROM game Myst are a plus for them. The fans are spastic to get online to tell you that it's a masterpiece AND that it doesn't match the way they visualized it. Hey guess what, that's not a films job!
The final scene of the movie in which two hobbits confirm that they are great friends as they move off to address the threat the movie has been plodding towards for 3 hours, is absurd. This isn't the genre where the friendship of 2 hobbits means anything conclusive; Getting to THE POINT would have been swell.
Bring a cast iron butt and an alarm clock with you. Watching it is a feat of endurance. Girls named Jennfier who secretly wish it was spelled Jennifyr will like it too.
Mr. Cranky Rates the Movies : Lord of the Rings
Hobbits - This is the race of people from which Danny DeVito and Michael J. Fox are descended. They are short and very stupid.
One of Jackson's bigger mistakes is giving well-known actors cameo roles that distract the audience from the main story.
It's bad enough that this movie is long and dull, but the thought that I'm going to have to sit through another six hours of this crap just makes it that much worse.