[NYer]

Raymond Arroyo did an excellent job interviewing Peter Jackson and many of the actors that star in LOTR. The interview appeared last Friday on EWTN.

[NYer]

LOTR Bump!! Pass it on.

[My2Cents]

I posted similar comments on a LOTR thread yesterday, but in light of Colson's comments, I'll say it again...

This film seems most timely for our place in history. The understanding that there is evil in the world that threatens to overwhelm what is good...The recognition that good will not overcome evil simply by being good. The forces of good need to be marshalled for an all-out fight if victory is to be assured...The idea that the culture of freedom is superior to the culture of death and oppression -- there is no "moral equivalency" in this movie. While there is "diversity" in the sense that there are many different peoples and cultures (elves, dwarfs, men, hobbits), their strength is in what unites them, what they have in common -- a love of freedom, and a willingness to fight for it...The notion that devotion to values and principles higher than oneself can motivate people to lay everything on the line. This is simply affirmation that there are some things worth fighting for, and their is honor and glory in the fight, even if the outcome of the fight isn't sure, and defeat is most likely.

The most poignant scene was the desparate declaration by Frodo after they have been taken to Osgiliath by Faramir, when he says to Sam, "I cannot do this!" The feeling of desparation and resignation was palpable. This feeling of despair, inability, and defeat is a common human experience. Which one of us hasn't faced, at some point in our lives, a battle or a situation where we felt completely outmatched and overwhelmed, and the temptation to give in? Sam's response, that the fight and effort are worth it because they fight for what is good, was as inspiring a statement ever presented on film.

Finally, the character Gollum/Smeagol was tremendous. Gollum's debate with himself about whether to serve "the Master" or to "kills it" -- the battle within himself -- and the victory (momentary as it would turn out to be) when "Smeagol" wills "Gollum" to "go away and never come back," was heart-wrenching. He is a characterization of ruined humanity -- ruined by sin, selfishness, and uncontrolled desire. There is still a spark of goodness in Gollum, the hope of redemption, but it's all the more sad and tragic because (if you've read the books) you know that spark never overcomes the darkness.

Perhaps it's just me, but I saw this film, more than the first, as a story of spiritual warfare. Particularly, it was a presentation of the truth of how strength, honor, courage, hope, sacrifice, goodness, heroism, and ultimately victory can overcome our own frailties if we are committed to a goodness that transcends us. And from a Christian perspective, we draw upon the higher power that transcends us.

[RobRoy]

I had never really been exposed to his work until I rented LOTR a couple of months ago. I did that only because I had heard that he and C.S. Lewis had been friends.

The movie blew me away and most definitely had a Christian message on the character of evil as played out in the hearts and minds of man.

I’m very much looking forward to seeing TT. I’ll be reading the books once I find the time.

I am now a fan.

[per loin]

It's well known that Tolkien rejected allegorical interpretations of Lord of the Rings-the notion, for example, that the ring represented the atom bomb. But Tolkien's Christian faith was a different matter. And it's no surprise that his faith found its way into the story.

It's rings, not ring. There are nineteen subsidiary rings, just as in Islam, there are nineteen angels who oversee hell.

[My2Cents]

[redbaiter]

Saw it last night, loved it. Gimli the dwarf was really hilarious this time out, always being subjected to indignities a la C3PO in Star Wars. I'm at a loss to describe the special effects, so I'll just call them amazing. But I will pass on the post-screening proselytizing, esp as the movie wrapped up at 2AM.

[redbaiter]

It's well known that Tolkien rejected allegorical interpretations of Lord of the Rings-the notion, for example, that the ring represented the atom bomb.

LOL! I had not heard that one. It's also well known that there's a sucker born every minute. The ring isn't likely to represent the Bomb, as the ring first appears in The Hobbit and that was written about 1917. I'm sure Tolkien was much too polite to heap scorn on these people as they deserve.

[BornOnTheFourth]

LOTR ping!

[.45MAN]

Have not seen either of the films. We try and stay away from hollywierd at all costs maybe we will go and see these, or rent the video......

[Porterville]

I thought the Ring represented the most degenrate porn in South Park, and that it would turn all who saw it into the lowsome creature Butters.

[psychopuppy]

Has anyone heard about the petition about the name of The Lord of the Rings II? Some illiterate and ignorant individuals were calling Peter Jackson insensistive for choosing to name the second Lord of the Rings film "The Two Towers". Like hello, J.R.R. Tolkien is the one who named it not Jackson.

[snarkpup]

I went to see it today. The theatre had the sound cranked up to a level I have never experienced before at a movie theatre. Even normal speech by the actors was ear-splitting. After a few minutes I had to leave because I could feel scary things happening inside my right middle ear. I complained to the manager about the hideously shrill and ear-shattering sound level and she explained that this is dictated by the studio and the theatre is prohibited from setting it any lower.

I don't know whether she was BS-ing me or if turning the volume up to 11 is a new, official policy for certain motion pictures. If the latter, I suggest taking shooting muffs or ear plugs, or just waiting and renting it.