I'm a big Lord of the Rings fan, but I have to admit I was skeptical about it being turned into a musical. Regardless, last weekend I went with several co-workers to see it. It wasn't my first choice but they didn't want to see Fame, Footloose or Chicago.
First, if you haven't read the books or watched the movies I don't think you would understand what was going on. Although I suspect if you haven't seen the movies you aren't likely to go to the musical so it's probably fine. They condensed 9 hours of movie into 3 hours of a musical (thankfully!) so obviously lots of things were cut. Second, there is no way you can appreciate the characters and the story of Lord of the Rings in this production. So basically everything I liked about LOTR was lost in the musical.
It seems as the whole point of the musical was to make cool sets, effects and bring to life interesting creatures on stage. This part shouldn't be underestimated because it was very impressive. Some of the things they did with the stage I'd never seen before. Gollom's performance was also really good. But some of the scenes seemed to be chosen just to showcase stage effects while there I were others that would have been better to cut.
As I've written this I realize I didn't say much positive. I really did enjoy the "show" overall. If you want to see cool costumes and effects I'd recommend it. If you want to see Lord of the Rings then watch the movie.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
West End review: Lord of the Rings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
That is crazy. I didn't even know such a musical existed!
When my family was in London, we saw Fame, so I smiled when I saw it was on your list.
Chicago is also a great musical, but I did find myself liking the movie better -- just because of creative filming.
If you get a chance to see either of those two, let me know, so we can compare notes! For now, I'll just ponder what kind of songs a LOTR musical would have!
Post a Comment