Good responses, Sam. And I do have many *good* things to say about the film, which I'll post later. For the moment, I'll continue discussion on a couple of the points already raised.

> The thing about the elves is, they *do* appear gloriously. The books' descriptions of the elves must have made it a headache to film, because the appearance of the elves, as described, is not worldly visualizable -- but I think a great job was done. If anything, my complaint is that Elrond *doesn't* look inhumanly glorious during the battle scene in the prologue. I would think an elf of Tolkien's would look spectacular even covered in battle grime.

I guess this is a matter of personal interpretation. I think of Tolkein's elves as being glorious and magical in a non-visual, hard-to-put-one's-finger-on sort of way. There's a bit of dialogue in the book where one of the hobbits asks whether the cloaks the elves have given them are magical, and the elves seem uncertain how to respond. The elves seem not to think of themselves as obviously "magical"; they just are the way they are. One might say that their magic is very deep and very natural, or simply very harmonious with their physical being. I've drawn my mental image of elves accordingly, and thought that their grandeur would be better communicated by good acting than by an otherworldly appearance.

It was unfortunate for me and for the people immediately around me in the theater that when I first recognized Hugo Weaving as the agent from "The Matrix", I spent a couple of minutes absolutely shuddering with restrained laughter as I mentally appended "...Mister Anderson." to the ends of all his lines. But once I calmed down and made myself accept him as Elrond, I thought he portrayed an elf lord very well. I wanted to see Celeborn and Galadriel handled similarly.

> With the second example, is it actually important that at least six weeks passed? It could be a day or two and not disrupt the narrative at all. Books need to be consistent with the maps of their worlds, but movies merely need not be inconsistent with them. The dramatic tension, in this case, was more important.

You're right of course, but a big part of the tension in the book was the realization of how much time had been needlessly wasted as the enemy came closer and closer. I'm not sure how Jackson could have parlayed that form of tension into the film without adding too much length, but I really would have liked to see it done. Just another subjective "I would've done it this way" gripe, is all.

> But all I can come up with are nitpicks like these. I think this one and Boromir's death are the only ones that amount to much significance. I'm used to watching movies -- even those that *start* with a known good story -- and having far greater problems, such as the unbelievability of entire character arcs, undermining performances, distracting special effects, an utter absence of a story, or a story that does not make sense.

This is true. I don't think the movie was deeply flawed; indeed in many ways it's quite a good movie. I'll probably enjoy it more on a second viewing. But it failed to do something that for me was important: capture roughly the same "feel" as the book. I doubt that would even be possible without making a much longer movie, however.

> Could one imagine a more charismatic portrayal of Gandalf? It's not easy to make a character in a movie both congenial and awe-inspiringly fearful, and yet when he enjoys a laugh with Bilbo or Frodo or amusing the Hobbit children at the expense of his wizardly dignity, we think he'd be the perfect cuddly grandpa, and when he intimidates Bilbo over the Ring (thanks to some incredible lighting effects but just as much due to the performance), we figure we'd perhaps rather cross anybody but him. The above is an example of something that would much more than a nitpick if it had not been successful. If Gandalf hadn't been portrayed so well, much of the movie would have buckled. But I think because we are familiar with the books and already understand Gandalf as a character, it's less noticeable to see it all work right than it is to see the more minor things that do not. But we must remember how difficult and improbable the greater things were to accomplish and how much better the movie is for the success.

The Bilbo-intimidation shot somehow didn't look right to me (perhaps it was too sudden), but other than that I have to agree about Gandalf. Other characters that I thought were well portrayed were Aragorn, Frodo, Boromir, Legolas, Gimli, Sam, Elrond, and Pippin (though he bordered on being *too* silly). Almost everyone.

Saruman had the right appearance and demeanor, but it grated on me that his motives were chopped down to "we can't prevail against Sauron, so we have to join him." The character is much more complex than that. Also the wizard battle looked a little silly -- too physical even for Tolkein's wizards, who are more physical than in most fantasy lit.

Liv Tyler was better than expected as Arwen, and I've already said my piece about Celeborn and Galadriel.

Another few complaints that I left out earlier:

* I didn't need so much background music playing all the time. It's probably just me, but I found it irritating more than useful to cue the mood. If the actors are doing their job well, I'll figure out whether it's supposed to be a tense moment, or a tender one, or whatnot. Much of the time I wished I could hear the elements themselves, such as the breeze over the mountain ridges, instead of music while Boromir and Aragorn talk about their homeland.

* Where exactly was the Fellowship going to go once it reached the end of that narrow frozen ledge? If the ledge continued around the corner of the cliff, it wasn't apparent.

* Though the Balrog had no lines in the book, I still think of it as intelligent and cunning instead of a rampaging monster. A little less wide-mouthed roaring and a little more cunning would have been appropriate for that CG creature. Plus, it took absolutely *forever* to catch up to the Fellowship.

* Frodo ought to at least have cracked a rib from that spear thrust. Mithril or not, that was chainmail he wore, not rigid plate armor. Very minor quibble.

Iss