June 15, 2020
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring / Old Forester 1920
The player is loading ...
Bob and Brad kick off Season 3 with the 2001 classic The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the RIng, and let their nerd flags fly high on this one. They break down why they think it's definitely not the best of the trilogy, as well as how Peter Jackson grew as a director throughout the course of the three Rings movies.
Meanwhile, they drink one of Bob's favorite whiskeys, Old Forester 1920. At a $60 price point, how will this one hold up, especially in their value scores?
- 0:00 - Intro and Initial Thoughts
- 26:00- Jack Daniel's Review
- 37:00- Analysis and Final Thoughts
- Film & Whiskey Instagram
- Film & Whiskey Facebook
- Film & Whiskey Twitter
- Call-in Line: (216) 800-5923
- Email us!
- Join our Discord channel!
Theme music: "New Shoes" by Blue Wednesday
Transition music: Solace by Johto
--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/filmwhiskey/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/filmwhiskey/support
Transcript
In 2001, director Peter Jackson gave the world an epic introduction to a trilogy that would change the face of cinema. In 2020, we go back a century to a time where bourbon was illegal. The film is The Fellowship of the Ring.
The whiskey is Old Forester 1920. And we'll review them both. This is The Film and Whiskey Podcast.
Welcome to The Film and Whiskey Podcast, where each week we review a classic movie and a glass of whiskey. I'm Bob Book. I'm Brad G.
And this week we are looking at the 2001 film, The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring. You shall not pass! Brad, it is good to be back.
We are kicking off season three today. We're back, baby. Can you believe that we've made it to season three already?
I know that it's completely arbitrary that we're in season three now, but this is a milestone for us. Actually, Bob, it is not arbitrary at all because the numbers of movies chosen for each season gives us a perfect opportunity to create brackets. And if we know anything, it's that America loves bracket madness.
Absolutely. So here we are in season three. Yeah.
And honestly, I'm a little bit amazed it took us this long to delve into what might be my favorite movie series of all time. Yeah, it's got to be close for me too, Brad. And this was done on purpose.
Last season, we kicked off the season with The Dark Knight, one of the world's most popular films of all time. We had to save The Lord of the Rings movies for an important moment in the history of our podcast. And what better time to put The Lord of the Rings in than as the first episode, the season premiere of season three?
I am crazy excited to get into this episode. There's so much going on in this movie, let alone the trilogy. But first, are there any movies that you're crazy excited for in this season?
You know what, Brad? Honestly, I was looking, just scanning up and down all 32 movies that we have coming up this season. And for me, at least, there are not very many low points.
It's just like back to back to back movies. I am excited to talk about. In a couple of weeks, we're going to be talking about one of my favorite movies, Double Indemnity of 1944.
It's a movie I don't think you've seen yet, Brad. So I'm excited to get around to that one. But before we get there, we have to start talking about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings series.
And Brad, just as a quick aside for our listeners out there, if you want to get in contact with us, if you want to have the conversation about these movies with us, we always welcome listener feedback. Yeah, if you want to connect with us on any of our social media accounts, Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, you can find us at Film Whiskey. Or you could give us a phone call.
We do have a call in line. You can find our number in the show notes of every one of our episodes in your preferred podcast platform. Or if you go to our Anchor website, you can find in every show notes a link to actually record from your tablet, from your phone, from your computer, a message that's automatically sent to us.
We love to play those messages on air, Brad. We have been getting a ton of listener feedback from our season two finale a few weeks ago on Back to the Future.
Hey, this is Brian in Kansas City. Big fan of the show, guys. I kind of wanted to respond to that Back to the Future episode that's pretty infamous now that you guys put out.
You know, I'm probably one of the few people who actually totally gets everything you're saying. I see all the issues you're talking about. Very few of the issues you put out were not legit.
I just don't think that all those issues are created equally. I don't think it's a bad script. I think it's a good script because of its structure and its style of storytelling.
It's just the dialogue is bad. Like there's issues with it. So I get it.
And Bob, I want to touch on what you said about that Libyan scene where they were shooting and you thought it was kind of this over the top, almost comedic thing. I don't see that. Like it's not realistic and it's a little kind of ridiculous.
But I don't see that they were trying to be funny there. I think it was just that's how they presented it. Not the best.
But I think it's a good movie at the end of the day. I just don't think it's a great movie. And it maybe hasn't aged well, but I don't think that makes it a bad movie necessarily.
I think it's just flawed. So but thanks for putting out the show, guys. Appreciate it.
Love listening.
Yeah, man, I think we need a high note after that episode. Well, I hope this is the movie to do it. Brad, it sounds like you are very familiar with the Lord of the Rings films.
I am as well. I want to hear a little bit of your history with them, Brad. Well, honestly, Bob, this is one of those movies that I'm kind of amazed I saw in theaters.
This came out in 2001. I believe it was sometime in the fall of 2001, November or December. And so I saw it right around when I was turning 11 years old.
When both of us were turning 11 years old. So the first time I ever saw it, I hadn't read the books yet, but I watched the first movie and then I immediately went. And as an 11 year old, I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Wow. And fell in love. And I like if there are two things that I know way too much random crap about, it's Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.
I'll tell you what, Brad, you know, this movie and the first Harry Potter film came out in the same year, 2001. And for people of our generation, it is really hard to imagine a cinema landscape or a world without the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter films. But that was the case in 2001.
There just weren't a lot of fantasy based world building type movies that had come out. And I actually didn't see Fellowship of the Ring until it came out on video the following year. I was really big into Harry Potter because it was a book that I could read at my age level.
And I thought that this first Lord of the Rings movie was just bogged way too bogged down in the world building elements. When I first saw it, it was really hard to follow. They didn't really they don't hold your hand a lot in this movie.
They don't walk you through. Why are people speaking in these different languages? Why is Aragorn shouting Elendil when he jumps off, jumps on top of an Uruk-hai at the end of the movie?
Like there's just there's so many things that even throughout the course of the trilogy, they don't explain. And I think watching it this time, Brad, I have a lot more respect for this series for not holding your hand in the first film. But right up front, I think I will still say this might be my least favorite of the trilogy.
I don't know. Where do you stand on the trilogy, Brad? The trilogy as a whole, I would probably go favorite to least favorite.
The Two Towers, the Fellowship of the Ring, the Return of the King. I think that by the time they got to the Return of the King, I remember even as a kid, you know, this came out, that came out in 2003. I remember watching it in theaters and just feeling like it felt kind of bloated and like it had just gotten a little bit too big for itself.
Still a spectacular movie, still one of my favorite movies of all time. But there's something about the first and the second one that they both felt so clean to me. That like, I know that you've told me in the past, and you'll probably say it again here soon, but you felt like the first two hours of Fellowship kind of drag a little bit.
I think that the first two hours of this movie just beautifully set up the final nine hours or however many hours you spend watching the rest of the trilogy. You gain such an important sense of place and geography and like what you're fighting for, that I really appreciate the slowness of those first few hours. For me, I think this trilogy really mirrors another trilogy that we're used to pretty well, and that would be the Dark Knight trilogy.
Just like you said, the last film in that series, The Dark Knight Rises, it got a little bit too big for its britches. It was trying to do too much philosophically. It was bloated.
It was overlong. And yet the first movie in that series, Batman Begins, almost feels too small in comparison. Like Batman's not doing enough in that movie.
And you hit that really perfect middle ground with the second film. And I agree with you, Brad. I think The Two Towers is the best film in this trilogy.
That's not to say that I don't love this movie. And I really do. And I'm excited to get into talking about the highs and the lows that are found in this movie.
But before we get there, we have to get into America's favorite segment, Brad Explains. That's where Brad walks us through the plot of the film that he's just seen, often for the first time. That's not the case now.
And Brad, I'm going to give you a warning, because we could go 45 minutes with you explaining the plot of this movie in graphic detail. I want you to try to pare it down. I want you to try to give us a very simple, streamlined explanation of The Fellowship of the Ring.
You know how sometimes someone who's not an expert on something will struggle to explain, and it takes just forever to understand something? For me, this is so deeply ingrained in who I am that I think this might be easy for me. Bob, the story of The Fellowship of the Ring, as told by Peter Jackson in this film, is a simple story about a ring of power.
And this ring of power was created by an evil lord, Sauron, who combined his life energy into this ring. It was taken from him thousands of years before, you know, when the movie takes place. And the ring has passed down through the ages, and it has fallen into the hands of a young hobbit named Frodo.
And an old wizard named Gandalf has been in relationship and knows the hobbits in general that live in the Shire. And he realizes that this ring is the one ring to rule them all. And so he sets Frodo off on a quest with his best friend Sam to travel to Rivendell, which is the land of the elves.
And upon arrival in Rivendell, they'll kind of reassess where they're at. So Frodo and Sam travel to Rivendell. They pick up a few companions along the way.
Most importantly, Strider, who is a ranger that helps defend the lands from unseen threats. He helps them make it to Rivendell, although they are chased by the chosen servants of the Dark Lord Sauron, the Ringwraiths. And at one point, the Ringwraiths stab Frodo, and they almost turn him into a wraith.
But they make it to Rivendell with safety. And at Rivendell, they have a council of elves and dwarves and men and hobbits to decide what to do with the ring. And it's decided that they need to take the ring to Mordor, where it was created, and cast it into the fiery chasm of Mount Doom, which is the only place it can be destroyed.
And so a fellowship of nine members is chosen to go forth and take the ring. On the way down to Mordor, they are waylaid by enemies of Saruman, who's another wizard that went bad. And so they travel underneath the mountains.
And in the mines of Moria, they are attacked by goblins and a massive demonic creature named the Balrog. Gandalf sacrifices his life to help them get away. And nearing the end of the movie, Boromir, who is the son of the steward of Gondor, tries to take the ring from Frodo.
But Frodo is able to escape. And he and Sam take off by themselves, while Boromir is killed by orcs. The other two hobbits that were traveling with them get taken by the Uruk-Hai, which are forces of Saruman.
And so at the end of the film, we have the fellowship broken, Frodo and Sam setting off on their own to travel to Mordor. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are traveling to rescue Merry and Pippin from the clutches of Saruman. Boom, baby.
Bob, all I have to say is, do you remember when I tried to explain Gone with the Wind? Oh, yeah, because you went on for like nine minutes. It was the worst thing in the world, because it was a four-hour movie and I had no idea how to just summarize it.
Yeah, so much happened. This movie, on the other hand, I don't know about you, but I watched the extended edition. And man, I like this story is just so good.
And I love it. And I know that if you haven't seen the movie, you might not fully understand everything I said, but I feel like I gave a decent summary. Yeah, I think you did.
And the thing with Lord of the Rings is like, you have to either be all in on it or just not watch it. There are so many different species of things running around. There's these things called orcs.
And then there's like the marines of orcs that are getting bred by Saruman, the bad wizard called Uruk-Hai. You've got dwarves. You've got elves.
You've got men. You've got these short little hairy creatures called hobbits. There's just there's tons of world building.
And this movie has to lay the groundwork for everything that's going to come after it. And Brad, honestly, I was super impressed at how well it did that. I do think there are times where it went a little overboard in the exposition, a little bit overboard in kind of needless information.
Some of the elvish language that's brought into things that's like it's unnecessary. But overall, this movie really nails its job, which is to set up the story to get you hooked and to show the sort of narrative arc of like where Frodo starts in this movie to where Frodo ends. You know, I'm used to seeing Frodo kind of slip into more and more paranoia.
And you can see the ring really weighing on him in the last two movies. But if I'm being honest, I think Frodo goes through the biggest character arc in this film. You go from these incredibly tranquil, green rolling pastures of Hobbiton in the Shire to Frodo alone holding this ring on the edge of a lake at the end of the movie.
And honestly, if you don't know the story, you're wondering, like, is Frodo going to wander into this lake and kill himself? Because you already have such an acute understanding of what this ring is doing to him. I wish the ring had never come to me.
I wish none of this had happened.
So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the Bolivian. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it.
And that is an encouraging thought.
I think that's one of my favorite things about how Peter Jackson captures Tolkien's world. He really captures the essence of the ring's ability to warp people's desires and personalities as it travels throughout the world. And you kind of feel this grandfatherly sense from Gandalf when he says, but he should never have had to bear this burden.
Man, I just love how this movie gives you the different points of view. It shows you the points of view for The Hobbit. From a cinematography standpoint, I love that the first almost half of the movie, up until Rivendell, everything is kind of shot from the viewpoint of a hobbit.
You know, like Gandalf appears crazy tall. When they get to the village of Bree, the humans in there seem tall and intimidating and gruff and strange. There's just so many different viewpoints shown in this movie.
And yet, by the end of it, you've seen a character arc for a lot of different characters. And it's beautiful. The thing that Brad is talking about here is a thing called forced perspective, which is an in-camera trick.
And they use it in this movie to show the perspective in height and weight difference between a hobbit and a full-grown man. And hobbits are basically about three feet tall. And in this movie, they really employ these incredible tricks where they build sets in a way that the sets are very oftentimes actually not connected to each other.
Like, you'll have characters sitting across the table from each other. And it's actually two different halves of a table, and one character is actually positioned way farther back away from the camera. But the way the camera films it, it looks like a connected table, and it looks like you have one small person sitting across from a big person.
Brad, I think you're absolutely right. This movie is full of computer-generated imagery, as are all three of the movies. But what really makes this movie succeed is how well they marry those CGI shots with practical effects and in-camera tricks.
And they do it really, really well. And they establish it very early on in this movie. Yeah.
Honestly, Bob, I think to lay the groundwork for where we're going with this trilogy, I think you just have to say they do everything big. I'm going to start by pointing out the credits. Bob, have you ever just let the credits roll at the end of a movie?
You're done with the movie, you go, you clean up the kitchen some, and then you come back and the credits are over? Absolutely. I was doing that after Fellowship.
I'll tell you what, man. Those credits went on for about 15 minutes. And for a solid 10 minutes at the end, I don't even know what the title of these people's names were.
But there's just name after name after name, hundreds and hundreds of names. Everything that this movie goes for, whether it's the cinematography, whether it's the music, whether it's the acting, whether it's the costuming and design, everything is big. And I will 100% admit, there's some parts where it doesn't pay off.
And there's some parts of this movie that are rough. But for the most part, it's incredible what they were able to capture in this movie, along with all three movies. So one thing that I worry about with this episode, Brad, and with The Lord of the Rings in general, is that because we're fans and because we have sat and watched the supplemental features on all the DVDs of the theatrical versions, of the extended versions, we could really nerd out.
And we could talk about really minute things that happen in the story. But there are a lot of people listening that may not have even seen this movie before. And I think we need to focus on what does this do as a movie?
Like, what's going on with the camera? What's going on with the acting, with the direction? But I think we also need to kind of situate this movie in movie history.
One of the most interesting things about this to me is how this movie came to be. You have this guy, Peter Jackson, who had really been known as a low-budget horror movie director for a number of years. He's a New Zealander.
And then he kind of works his way into doing a couple dramas. And he finishes this movie in 1995 called The Frighteners. And he starts pitching to Harvey Weinstein at Miramax that he wants to do a Lord of the Rings series.
It's a favorite of his since he was a teenager. And initially, the pitch was, we want to do a Hobbit movie, and we want to do two Lord of the Rings movies. And so we'll have three total films.
Harvey Weinstein gets on board. Then they find out that they can't get the rights to The Hobbit. It's a whole rigmarole.
Eventually, they move forward on making their two Lord of the Rings movies. Weinstein pours about $15 million into Peter Jackson doing research and writing the scripts. And then they don't like what he comes up with.
And they say, we want to condense this down into one movie. We want you to tell this whole trilogy in one film. Peter Jackson says, absolutely not.
Goes around Hollywood for like four weeks until he finally lands at New Line Cinema. And he tells New Line the plan. He says, we want to make these two movies.
The guys at New Line had had a bunch of movies that didn't have sequel opportunities. And they were like, look, there's three books. Make us three movies, because that allows us to have three movies to sell into syndication, three movies to make merchandising money off of.
And so they give Peter Jackson this huge budget. They send him to New Zealand. And they say, film all three of these movies at the same time.
Come back with a trilogy, and we'll put them together. And that's, I mean, like when you think about what they had to do to get this trilogy made, it kind of blows my mind. Because Peter Jackson, for being a guy that had made some movies, was really, to the general public, an unknown director.
We're not talking about Steven Spielberg here. And to this day, I don't understand how he was able to talk his way into directing one of the biggest trilogies of all time. Yeah, well, and when you look at these three movies, I don't think the general public, and I know that I don't, has an idea on what it takes to make a movie.
Just all of the stuff that goes into making a movie. And then think about all the stuff it takes to go into making just one three and a half hour movie. And then think about filming three three and a half hour movies back to back to back in New Zealand.
Like the fact that Peter Jackson was able to manage all of that, the fact that he was able to keep all of those pieces together in his mind, and in his notes, and to know like moving from this scene to that. And I'm just amazed that he was able to pull this off. Now, I will say, Brad, I've already said, I think this might be my least favorite of the trilogy.
And part of that is because I don't know if Peter Jackson had 100% found his footing on how to make an epic film going into this. And that's not to say that this movie doesn't work. It absolutely works.
But I think that there are some little camera movements, some little shots, some little tricks that he employs, that he's really pulling his sort of low budget horror movie expertise into things here. There's a lot of insert shots, they call them, when like you'll have a shot of like 500 orcs, and then they'll do a close up of like one orc. And he just goes, bah, at the camera.
And then they, you know, it's to give you an idea of what the orcs look like, that they're kind of grotesque looking. I think they do that a lot in this movie. And they don't do it as much in the other two movies.
It really works to kind of build a sense of dread, to build a sense of unease with where the characters are going as they kind of descend further and further down into darkness. But I have to be honest with you, Brad, I think some of the shots in this movie are just kind of chintzy looking. Like they almost look like they don't belong.
Yeah, there's two specific shots that I'm thinking of. Honestly, I can't remember exactly where this is in the movie. I think it's when they're at Balin's tomb in the Mines of Moria.
But there's a part where like you see the goblins kind of coming in, and then the camera goes to Merry and Pippin, and you see them go, oh, oh. And like they have these like really cheesy, scared looks on their faces. And it looks really forced.
And I think the word you used is the best word, Bob. It was chintzy. And I would agree.
I think in this film, there's just certain moments where I think a more experienced director would have been more comfortable with sitting with the camera on the larger shot and allowing the action to happen, rather than forcing those insert shots like you were talking about. I think, honestly, the realm of fantasy was so far outside of the American public's perception that I think that those, even those insert shots were world building. It was telling you a story about who these characters were, these orcs, these goblins, what they cared about, why, you know.
But I would agree, they become a little wearisome by the time that you get to the end of the film. There is another thing that happens in this movie, and I don't remember if he carries it over into two and three. I guess we'll get around to finding out.
But they did this thing in like the early 2000s where when shots were in slow motion, they weren't just in slow motion, but they added this weird effect where it was kind of like streaky as things went across the screen. And Peter Jackson uses that probably five times in this movie. The most memorable one for me is when you find out that Saruman is breeding these special orcs called the Uruk-Hai.
And every time they show the Uruk-Hai, they put that effect on them. Like when they're running through the woods, it's this weird streaky slow-mo. And it just, because we don't use that effect anymore, it looks dated and it looks cheap.
It looks like they were trying to cover up from the fact that like maybe this one chase sequence didn't have as big of a budget as the rest. And so they tried to make it look cooler. Specifically, there's that one chase scene where the Ringwraiths are chasing Arwen through the woods.
And it looks like they filmed it like in somebody's backyard a little bit. And like, there's just little things in this movie where it's like, OK, I can tell that maybe not all of the money for the trilogy went into this one. I mean, I will say this.
When I look at that scene with Arwen, watching it with a little more critical lens, I almost felt like there was a few shots where you get a side shot of the chase and the cameras like slowly panning and zooming in. And it felt like I was watching Stagecoach for a second. Did you ever get that vibe of like this like big chase scene on horses?
Yeah, for sure. And like, to be honest with you, I didn't think it was an incredibly well choreographed sequence either. It was just kind of like it looked like they had like a very limited amount of space and they just told the actors like right in a circle.
Yeah, but then but then Arwen gets to the river and she pulls out that wicked looking sword and she starts speaking in Elvish and the waterfalls come down and you're just like, oh, my gosh, that's funny, man. No, but listen, we we're going to get into talking about all of the moviemaking elements of this. Like we have to talk a little bit more about Peter Jackson's direction.
We haven't talked about the acting at all. And then I want to get into like the content of the movie. Does it work?
What doesn't work about it? What makes it one of the weaker installments in this trilogy? But before we get to all that, Brad, let's press pause here and let's try this Old Forester 1920.
Let's get to it. All right, so today we are checking out Old Forester 1920. This is called their prohibition style bourbon.
Old Forester is the longest continuously running bourbon brand in the United States. They've been at it for 145 years. They're owned by the Brown Foreman Company.
Old Forester is a pretty famous budget bourbon. You know, I don't want to call it bottom shelf, but it's a cheaper bourbon. It's probably 18, 19 dollars.
I've never been a huge fan of Old Forester, to be honest with you, Brad. There's something about that, like higher rye content that I think is in it. It's a little too spicy.
It's not sweet enough for me. A few years back, Old Forester started to produce this line of specialty bourbons, and they're all dated with a certain year on them. One's called 1897.
One's called 1910. And then they came out with this 1920. And I don't remember where I first tried this, but I tried it and was like, oh my gosh, that's one of the best bourbons I've ever had in my life.
And ever since then, I have been singing the praises of 1920. It's really the only Old Forester that I like, Brad. And I'm super excited to share it with you today.
Have you ever tried this before? Honestly, Bob, I'm not sure if I've ever had any Old Forester, any other brands. So I'm really excited to get into this.
I've already poured it out. And man, oh man, it has a decently strong nose. The alcohol is a little bit forward.
But as it settled, I am blown away. There's just some dark chocolatey notes on the nose that I haven't often found on other whiskeys we've drank. Well, the thing I love about this, Brad, it's a no age statement bourbon.
So, you know, it's at least four years old. It's bottled at 115 proof. So it's a higher proof whiskey.
It definitely has a kick when you drink it. But you wouldn't be able to tell that from the nose. It's this really, really dark, complex kind of medley of spices and coffee and chocolate.
I get a lot of like a toffee, butterscotch kind of smell on this as well. It's like every great dark note that a bourbon could have is on this. Yeah, and even in despite of all that darkness, I still get a hint of vanilla.
Like my wife was making some cake the other day, and she accidentally spilled a little bit of vanilla. And I smelled it. And all of a sudden, my mouth got a little bit dry.
And I was like, man, I really want whiskey all of a sudden. And it's because of whiskeys like this where, yes, there's a lot going on. There's spices.
It's interesting. But man, oh man, there's that little hint of sweet vanilla on it. And I absolutely love it.
So I had a little bit left in my glass. I've been sipping on it throughout the episode. And it had really mellowed into this great caramelly, you know, not much of a hint of ethanol on it.
I just poured some more on top of it. And it's really funny when you first pour it out. It's almost a completely different nose.
You get a lot of that sort of almost like tobacco-y, dark coffee notes on it. And it's a little bit more astringent, but not in a bad way. So this is a really complex nose.
And I love everything about it, Brad. I think I'm going to give it an eight and a half on the nose. Yeah, Bob, I'm a really big fan of this nose as well.
I'm going to give it an eight. It's really beautiful. And it's leading me to a place that I think I'm going to enjoy.
Well, let's give it a sip and find out, Brad. Bob, wow. That is, that's a freaking bourbon.
Yeah, for sure. And again, the funny thing is, you know, I've been sipping on this throughout the episode. This kind of fresh batch that's in my glass now, it has some of those more kind of sour astringent notes on it.
I think this is definitely a whiskey that you want to let breathe for a couple minutes before you take a sip of it. Because when you do, it really mellows out. And it becomes just this beautifully rounded, complex, dark bourbon.
Again, I think the notes of toffee and butterscotch are there really, really prominently for me. Oh, yeah. If you drink it when you first pour, it's like straight black coffee.
That's like the prominent note for me. But the longer you let it sit, it gets really sweet. And just like this beautiful candy, dark toffee flavor.
Yeah, Bob, I think the biggest thing for me is that toffee. It's like a nice, dark, almost like, I don't know. Have you ever had toffee that was like almost cooked a little bit too long?
It's almost a little bit burnt. That's kind of what it tastes like for me. And it is spectacular.
I'm going to give it an eight and a half on the flavor. I'm going to stick at an eight on the taste. Like I said, you have to let it sit for a couple minutes.
And that does dock at a couple points for me. But it's still a phenomenal taste. On the finish, the thing about this is for being 115 proof, it's a whiskey that you kind of have to chew on a little bit, but it doesn't leave a really lasting impression after you swallow, which could be good or bad.
It's very mouthwatering, but the finish is not lasting at all. And within probably 10, 15 seconds, your tongue kind of forgets that there was anything there. I don't know, Brad, do you think that's a good or a bad thing?
I mean, I'm a human being. I want more of a good thing. So, you know, with whiskeys that were kind of like, yeah, that's an OK flavor.
I think we would probably say, yeah, and it dissipates kind of quickly. And that's a good thing. With this whiskey, I really wish the flavor sat on my palate and on the back of my throat for a lot longer.
It dissipates fast. And I'm kind of missing out on something. I will say there are certain whiskeys that kind of sour as they linger, and this one doesn't do that.
There's spices going on on the palate that don't lead to sourness. And so I'm a big fan of that. I'm going to give it a seven and a half on the finish.
I think it's solid. It just tails off a little bit. Brad, have you ever drank like a coffee bean that's been flavored, like a vanilla coffee bean?
Not like adding creamer, but like. Yeah, no, there's something about like when I swallow this, it has that distinct flavor of a flavored coffee, and I can't quite place if it's like a hazelnut or a vanilla. But I get a lot of black coffee and I get a lot of that sort of artificial like vanilla flavor.
Does that make sense? I used to work at a coffee shop and we had those flavored coffee beans that didn't taste sugary or fake at all. They just had a little bit of a flavor to them when you when you roasted them.
And, you know, and you made the coffee. There's one specific one called Jamaican Me Crazy, which is a great name for a coffee bean. But yeah, it had some butterscotch caramel notes to it that I would agree with you.
When I think about this old Forester, it makes me think of drinking Jamaican Me Crazy at Choffee's down here in Delaware. So, Brad, what did you give it on the finish? Seven and a half.
Yeah, I think I'm going to go ahead and give it a six and a half on the finish. It's good, but it's not very lasting. And that takes us to overall balance.
This is where we talk about nose, taste and finish all put together. I do think that this kind of tapered off a bit for me. The nose really sold me and the taste was very, very good.
And then the finish was fine. And so I think that sort of there definitely was a decrease in quality as we went along here. But overall, this is still a phenomenal whiskey, and it's more well balanced than most of the ones we drink.
I think I'll still give it a seven and a half. Bob, what proof did you say this was? 115.
OK, I was going to say this definitely has the legs of a higher proof whiskey. I didn't realize it was 115. It's an incredibly sippable, drinkable, high proof bourbon.
We drink a lot of barrel proof and like they kick you in the chest going down. This one, I don't have heartburn. I don't have the Kentucky hug.
It's immensely sippable. Yeah, and there's a decent amount of viscosity on the front end. I think I'm actually going to give it a seven and a half on balance.
Man, this is an impressive whiskey, Bob. Now, where this is going to get you, Brad, is on the price. And that takes us to our overall value score.
This is a high end bourbon. This is going to be at or near the top shelf on your liquor store shelves when you go to buy it. It's widely available, which is one of the great things about it.
But it's going to be in the same price range as a Weller Antique, as a Henry McKenna. In the state of Ohio, this bottle will run you $59. So it's it's an investment.
But even then, like I still think it's worth it. It's one of the better high proof bourbons we've ever had. It's produced on a very large scale.
It's available everywhere. So if you know, if you don't feel like hunting down something that's super allocated, you can go to the liquor store and pick up a bottle of this and it can be your quote unquote fancy bourbon. Yeah, Bob, this bourbon isn't perfect.
There's areas where it struggles. But we're really picking nits here, if you will. It is not hard to say that I would highly recommend this whiskey.
I think I'm going to give it an eight on value and say, you know, if you're able to get two other friends, pay $20 each and have a good night with this bottle of bourbon like it's a heck of a bourbon that has some amazing stuff going on and well worth your $60. I'm going to give it a seven on value. Again, $60, it's hard to fully recommend anything, but this really does have some great legs to stand on, like you were talking about.
I mean, like it's it's one of my favorite bourbons. It's right up there with a McKenna, and I don't have to go hunting for it the way I do McKenna anymore. I'm going to give it a seven on overall value, and that takes my final score to a thirty seven and a half.
Bob, that brings me out to a thirty nine. Wow. So we are talking like upper echelon of whiskeys here.
That takes us to a 76.5 out of 100 or 38.25 out of 50. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we both recommend Brad highly recommend. I think it's fitting that we're pairing it with a movie that we would both highly recommend.
What do you say we ride this wave of goodwill back into the Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring? Let's get to it. All right, so that was Old Forester prohibition style.
We are back into talking about the Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring. And Brad, I'm kind of dreading this a little bit because we have to talk about the acting now, and that's not to say the acting is bad, but the cast in this movie is like 900 people long, and we obviously can't get to talking about all of them. So I think we should just kind of hit the major players in this movie.
And then if you really want to call out some secondary character, we can, but we need to start right at the top with Elijah Wood as Frodo. He was a teenager when they cast him in this movie and when they first started filming it. And I am blown away watching his performance in this film.
You know, when I was a kid and I started watching Lord of the Rings, I always gravitated towards Sam as the best friend. I always gravitated towards Aragorn and Gandalf were so cool. And I always thought Frodo was just like whiny and depressing to watch.
And now as an adult going back and watching it, I'm really pleasantly surprised not only at how good Elijah Wood is, but at how the script lets him have these moments from the very beginning where you really start to understand the gravity of the situation and the weight that the ring is putting on him. And you start to see that slide. And I love that they foreshadow it when they go to Rivendell and he sees his uncle Bilbo again.
And he finally has this first conversation with Bilbo where they're both aware of what the ring can do. And they can finally kind of break down the barrier of just being nice and playful with each other. And Frodo looks at Bilbo and says, you know, I always thought that I was going to want to run away and be on an adventure like you.
And he tells him to his face, I'm not like you, man. And you start to understand, oh, this is not good for Frodo. And then Frodo volunteers to take the ring the rest of the way to Mordor.
And you, as the viewer already know, this is not going to end well for our friend Frodo. Yeah, I think a really good analogy would be when I read the Harry Potter series as a kid, Harry in book five just came across as a whiny, spoiled, upset brat. And I know that might sound bad, but as a kid, I was like, Harry, like, get your head out of your butt.
You're just whining all the time. But then eventually I read the book as an adult and I was like, oh, Harry's super depressed. Like he watched Cedric Diggory die in front of him.
He's struggling with this idea of destiny and being chosen for something. And so I began as an adult to appreciate the struggle that Harry is going through. And I think that you see the exact same thing with Frodo throughout these three movies.
You see him go from this happy-go-lucky hobbit who's, you know, making jokes with Gandalf about being late and enjoying the party with Bilbo and drinking with Sam and being, you know, hanging out in the shire. And you see him devolve into depression, a little bit of madness. And Elijah Wood's performance, I genuinely think, is amazing.
Well, and I don't think we can really divorce ourselves from the script when we're talking about the actors, because, you know, with any big ensemble movie like this, the actors don't really get a ton of stuff to sink their teeth into. A lot of times, and especially with a fantasy movie like this, you're just talking plot. You're just, you know, exposition.
That's all you do. And I really love that they give Frodo that first scene with Bilbo, and then they give him that scene in the Mines of Moria with Gandalf that comes back at the end of the movie when Gandalf tells him, you know, all we have to do is decide what to do with the time that's given to us. And I think that's a perfect segue into talking about Ian McKellen as Gandalf.
The thing is, I don't really know what there is to say about Ian McKellen as Gandalf. He so embodies Gandalf. It's just such a perfect casting that it's hard to evaluate it as an acting performance.
He's just he just is Gandalf, and there's really not much else to say about it. Yeah, honestly, I'm going to point you to probably one of the more famous YouTubers out there, Nerdwriter. Go watch the video that he did on how Ian McKellen acts with his eyes in the Lord of the Rings movies.
Bob, I think you pointed me to that originally. It's spectacular. But even more spectacular than that video is Ian McKellen as Gandalf.
I think that what I love most about him is that he just captures this sense of seriousness, and yet he's still able to be jovial. I don't know what it is, but even in that moment in Moria, there's a lightness about him and airiness about him that that betrays the gravitas that he has throughout so many parts of the film. I just can't put my finger on it, but he might be one of the most perfect castings for any role ever.
And that takes us to the person that really is kind of like the third lead character in this movie. You've got Frodo, you've got Gandalf, and then you have Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn. Now, he doesn't come into the movie until probably the 45 minute mark.
But once he comes in, you start to understand that this is going to be the other protagonist, that as we cut back and forth with Frodo's story and the ring weighing on him, that Aragorn is also going to have a big part to play in this. You find out that he has a love interest, that he is heir to the throne of Gondor, he should be a king and he isn't, that his love interest is an immortal elven princess that wants to give up her immortality for him. There's a lot of really heavy stuff going on there.
And I think Viggo Mortensen really nails this performance. And the crazy thing about it is he also was pretty much an unknown before this movie. He had done quite a few films up to this point, but this role kind of bounced all around as they were trying to cast it.
They offered it to Daniel Day-Lewis on two separate occasions and he turned it down. There were some other people, apparently Nicolas Cage had expressed interest at some point in playing Aragorn, which I'm really, really happy that didn't happen. But Viggo Mortensen, really, I mean, there's not much else to say except for it's a star making performance.
It's the kind of performance that you see somebody in and then after the fact, when they blow up, you're like, yep, it makes perfect sense to me. Yeah, Bob, I think you put it perfectly when you talked about the amount of weight on Aragorn's shoulders as a character. Viggo just captures that weight so well.
And this might sound dumb, but he has those bright blue eyes that are just so feeling and caring. And you get through this movie and you just feel this rugged sense of determinedness from Aragorn that Viggo just embodies so perfectly. I think one of my favorite scenes of the movie is after Gandalf perishes in Moria and they're using slow motion and they arrive out on the hills of the mountain and it's daylight and you just see all of the characters in slow motion sobbing and crying.
And in that moment, you know that Aragorn is struggling. And despite all that, Aragorn still has the mission on the forefront of his mind. He still has this ability to draw the rest of them and say, look, if we don't get out of here, the orcs are going to kill us this evening.
We need to keep moving. And he draws the party forward. And I think it's that that just that deterministic nature of Aragorn that is just so attractive and so good.
Well, Brad, I don't know if we need to spend much more time talking about the casting, but is there anybody else that you feel is worthy of calling out for this movie? You know, initially, I wanted to talk about Sean Astin as Sam a little bit, but I don't know that this is really Sam's shining moment. Like the script is well written for him.
He has some really good scenes. But like if we're going to talk about Samwise Gamgee, we're going to talk about him giving his monologue at the end of the two towers. Well, I will say, though, with Sean Astin, I think one of my favorite scenes in this movie that I hadn't noticed until this viewing, the moment when Gandalf leaves Frodo and Sam in the shire, you know, Gandalf tells them to hurry to Riven or to the village of Bree.
And he takes off on his horse. And there's like the cackling of birds. And Frodo turns and kind of faces past the camera.
And he looks really scared. And Sam slowly walks up to him with a steady presence. And Frodo looks at him for a second, steadies himself and keeps moving on.
And that little scene, it's little scenes like that that I just go, man, Peter Jackson nailed this film. He nailed the casting. In that small moment, you see the relationship that is going to be going on between Sam and Frodo throughout the rest of the movie.
You see that Frodo is ambitious, but a little bit scared. And Sam is just a steady presence that's going to keep him moving throughout the films. So I know you said we're going to move on past Sean Astin, but I couldn't get away without mentioning that scene.
No, I think that's a great point, Brad. And I do think you provide a perfect segue into talking about Peter Jackson's direction. And, you know, I hate to do it because it does seem nitpicky.
But I do think there are some things about this movie that do make it, for me, the weakest entry of the three. Watching it this time, I really struggled to put my finger on it. And I do think that all the things I've said up to this point are true.
I do think there's a little too much exposition at times. I do think there are some things that just go unexplained, like why Aragorn is called Strider and not Aragorn. And then he is Aragorn and things like that, that they just they could have fixed with like one line of dialogue.
And people that read the books know the answer, but you shouldn't have to read a book to understand a movie. But the thing for me that really took some some wind out of the sails in this movie was kind of at the halfway point of the film. What Peter Jackson does with the story is he changes the most kind of dominating threat to the group halfway through the movie.
You know, when they first get out of the Shire, they're being chased by these nine cloaked figures called the Ringwraiths, who you find out used to be men and are now kind of like undead zombies that that will do anything to catch the ring from Frodo. And when Frodo gets stabbed by one of them, they're like, he's turning into a wraith. You can't kill these guys like Aragorn sets one of them on fire.
And then in the next scene, he's cool again. Like, it's a really, really scary presence. And then all of a sudden, this elvish princess, Arwen, sends a big tidal wave at them and they're gone.
They never come back again for the rest of the movie. And I can tell just through my headphones, Brad, that you're over there and you want to explain why they don't come back. But I'm just talking from a movie making standpoint.
The biggest threat in the movie, because Sauron is still way far off in Mordor, the most immediate threat is those ringwraiths. And then they're gone and they replace them with these giant orcs that Saruman is breeding called the Uruk-Hai. But at the end of the movie, you find out that the Uruk-Hai are just as easy to kill as all the other orcs.
Like, Aragorn takes out at least 40 of them in that final battle. And for me, it really kind of drained the movie of any tension because you had an incredibly threatening presence in these ringwraiths. And they replaced them with a villain that was kind of not as good, if I'm being honest.
I think it's interesting that you identify the villain of the second half as the Uruk-Hai specifically, because in my mind, the villain of the second half of the movie is Saruman, the wizard. He's the one that forced them off of the mountaintop by conjuring a magical storm to push them back underneath the mountains into the mines of Moria. And so I guess for me, the second half of the movie, the enemy that they're fighting really is, well, honestly, it's almost twofold.
The enemy in the second half of the movie that you don't get in the first half is the members of the party and the evil influence of the ring. And then secondly, it's Saruman himself. So this is where this is where I disagree, though, because like or I don't even disagree.
I do agree with you that that's the case. Like from a story plot standpoint, you're 100 percent right. But I think that's kind of where Peter Jackson drops the ball, because the way that he presents it in filmmaking language is like he keeps cutting to the Uruk-Hai who are like chasing them on foot and presenting them as like the most immediate threat.
It's kind of like when you're playing like a video game. You know, if you remember from back in the day when you're playing like Super Mario, you know, you got to face Bowser at the end of the game. Like he's the big bad.
He's the big boss. Sauron's coming. Saruman is coming.
But they're not like the most immediate threat. And I think by by putting so much emphasis on the Uruk-Hai as like this this really threatening presence and so threatening that they kind of replace the ringwraiths and then they get so quickly dispatched at the end of the movie, it was kind of anticlimactic. But I don't know.
Like when you look at this movie, because it sounds like you agree that there are some flaws. What things stick out to you as as kind of putting this movie a cut below the two towers for you? Yeah, I mean, we didn't we didn't talk about her specifically.
Liv Tyler, she's not the best actress out there. And I realized so the first thing I'd ever seen her in was this movie. I've since seen a few of her other films.
And I thought and this is something my wife always makes fun of. I thought that she like adopted this breathy voice to play an elven princess. And then I saw her in other movies.
I was like, oh, no, that's just like how she talks. And it kind of it kind of works as this ethereal elven princess. But her her performance is always a struggle for me.
The things that frustrated me with this movie are what we already hinted at and pointed to. There's just a few parts of the movie where Peter Jackson is a young director. The insert shots that he uses.
I don't think he gives good direction to some of the lesser actors to Mary and Pippin. There's just moments throughout the film where you're like, I understand why this is happening, but it's not happening very well. The acting isn't great.
So there's just a few parts throughout the movie where I'm like, well, we could have done a little better here, but, you know, it is what it is. Yeah, and I think that like as the movies go on, if they're going to introduce a new word or a new phrase or a new city name to you, they'll say like, we are going to the city of Minas Tirith. That city that that's called the White City.
It is in this country. They do a really good job of explaining to the audience like where the geography is in this movie. It's like, no, we're just going to shout random phrases and never come back to them again.
Like when they get found out in the mines of Moria by the goblins and all of a sudden Gandalf's like, make for the bridge of Khazad-Dum. You don't really find out what Khazad-Dum is. Do you really need to know that it's called the bridge of Khazad-Dum?
Can they just say make for the bridge? Like, I think there's just they try to weave in so much world building that sometimes it's just like I'm bogged down in information and it's hard to know what's going to become important and what's just window dressing. Yeah, Bob, I'm not I'm not sure for me.
I feel like this might be a personality difference, so it might just be something I enjoy more and you enjoy less, and that's fine. But for me, when I hear them say make for the bridge of Khazad-Dum, it makes me wonder what is Khazad-Dum? You know, like it makes me have a sense of history about it that I don't know about, and it makes me intrigued to learn more.
And I think it almost gives the world a lived in sense. You know, like if Gandalf had just said make for the bridge or make for the exit, if he just used a generic term, sure, that's fine. But that doesn't draw interest for me.
I like when they use names that I don't know the name of, and that might just be my personality. And I think in some movies, I think that you need to explain things more. But in a world as big as Lord of the Rings, I think there's a beautiful balance between delving into the history of the characters in the movie and the specifics of the world that they inhabit, but also showing like this is a huge world that has been around a long time before Frodo and Sam and the Fellowship.
Yeah, I think you actually hit the nail on the head, Brad. I think it really is a personality difference, because when I see screenwriters do stuff like this, I've always just kind of felt that it's a cheap way of doing world building. Like, go back to the first Star Wars, you know, A New Hope.
When you find out and it's a, you know, it's a famous line now, but like Han Solo did the Kessel Run in, you know, how many parsecs? Like, it's just like, I don't really care. I don't need to know what the Kessel Run is.
It's kind of cool. It makes him sound like a badass. But for me, it's like that's a really cheap way of doing world building.
Like, you just made up a phrase and all the characters in the scene go, whoa, the Kessel Run. So yeah, I think it's me nitpicking and this is still a great movie. And that kind of segues us into our last segment here, Brad.
I want to say before we give our final scores that the reason this movie works and the reason that it kept me hooked enough to go see The Two Towers and then to see The Return of the King is that Jackson and his screenwriters know how to do emotional scenes well. Like I said, when they get to Rivendell and Frodo has that conversation with Bilbo about how he's not like him and then Bilbo lashes out for the ring and you see the effect it's had on Bilbo and he just starts sitting down and weeping. I'm sorry I brought this upon you, my boy.
I'm sorry that you must carry this burden.
I'm sorry for everything.
I welled up a little bit like the raw emotions of what this film is about, about sacrifice, about honor and valor and standing up for what you know is right when no one else will do it. But then also the effects that those things have on people. It's about the weight of evil on a good person's soul.
And I think that they do that so, so well that you feel every tear that Frodo cries. You understand like when he says, I'll take the ring to Mordor and they show Gandalf and he just closes his eyes because he knows what this is going to do to Frodo. They do all of it so, so well.
And the emotion is so universal that any amount of world building and different languages they try to introduce, that's all secondary because we can all understand like what these characters are going through and they do it so well that this movie is just it's nothing but a success. Bob, I think that you are drawing at one of the most important things that we haven't talked about. And that is Howard Shore's soundtrack in this movie.
The composition for this film might be one of the most perfect compositions for a movie I have ever seen. The older I get and the more times I watch this movie, I'm blown away by how just spectacular, the spectacle that this soundtrack is. And you know, I love John Williams.
He's my favorite composer of all time. But I think that Howard Shore topped him for any movie John Williams has ever done in this movie. I can't get enough of this soundtrack because it drives home the emotions that you need to feel in every single scene.
This is the kind of score that is so intricate and it gets more so as the series goes on. As you introduce different nations and each nation has its own theme and you start to see how Howard Shore so masterfully weaves these themes back into things that it makes you want to learn more about film composition, like musical scoring of a movie. And you know, Brad, you mentioned the Nerdwriter, a guy on YouTube.
I'm going to actually suggest another Nerdwriter video. He did a whole episode about Howard Shore's score to The Lord of the Rings. And then there's also a YouTuber called Sideways and he has a great video where he talks about themes versus leitmotifs.
And I learned so much about The Lord of the Rings by watching those two videos. Like people talk about how Howard Shore scores for these movies are an accomplishment. And I think we all acknowledge that just because we all remember the theme so well.
But when you really look at what he did from a music theory standpoint, from actually composing these things and weaving these motifs together, it's mind blowing. And I think that's something that we get with The Lord of the Rings series as a whole. What Peter Jackson was able to pull off, what all of these, you know, miniaturists and special effects artists and costume, you know, practical effects artists and costume designers like this series will never be topped in a lot of ways.
And it's amazing to me that like I got to watch it come out one year after the next. Bob, I was I was honestly thinking I would pay so much money to watch these movies in theaters again. Yeah.
For the first time. Like to have that experience again, these these are, you know, our for lack of a better term, Brad, this was to us what Star Wars was to our parents generation. These are our Star Wars in a way.
And I would venture to say, I know you love Star Wars, but like I think these are better movies than the Star Wars movies are. I think that they have so much more depth and complexity to them. They build such a fantastic world that we never want to leave.
And that's going to bring me to my final score. This is not a perfect movie, but you could stack it up against any Harry Potter movie and I might choose it. You could stack it up against any Star Wars movie and I would 100 percent choose it.
I think that this movie is a nine out of 10. And when you when the worst movie in your trilogy is a nine, you know you're onto something. So I got done watching this movie.
I watched it with my wife. Now you watch the extended version, the three and a half hour. I did watch the extended three and a half hour version.
Now, I like the extended version, but I went theatrical for this one. OK, before I went into this movie, I would have said I'd probably give it a nine to a nine and a half. But, Bob, you've you've mentioned over over this last year and a half that coming to these movies for the podcast, for, you know, for all the movies we've watched over the last year and a half, you come to them with a more critical eye.
And I feel like about 60 to 70 percent of the time that has led to you giving it a lower score than you previously gave it. Would you say that's fair? Absolutely.
And but sometimes it leads to you saying, man, I appreciate this movie so much more than I ever did before. For me, this is in that latter category. And I as much as I will 100 percent admit there are flaws in this movie and I think the two towers is better.
I have watched this movie countless times and I will watch it countless more times and I'm going to give it a 10 out of 10. Yeah. And I totally understand that.
And the last thing you said, I think, is the key, Brad, when you can watch a movie countless times and it it continues to be new and fresh and have the same effect on you and make you feel those feelings that nothing else can. You do forgive the little miniature flaws in it. And I can absolutely understand it getting a 10 out of 10 from you.
That brings our final average to a nine point five out of 10. But we want to know what you think. So please get on social media.
You can find us on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram at Film Whiskey. Or you can give us a call. Our phone number is 216-800-5923.
Once again, that phone number is 216-800-5923. Or you can go head on over to our Anchor.FM page and record your message right there. Brad, it is so good to be back for season three.
We are right back in the thick of it again. Next week, we'll be back with the 1971 family classic, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. For the Film and Whiskey Podcast, I'm Bob Book.
I'm Brad G. And we'll see you next time. Next week, we'll be back with the 1971 family classic, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
I'm so excited right now. Yeah, dude. Baby G, part one.
So yeah, we're having our first baby. Do you want that in the episode? Because I will put that in the episode if you want it in there.
Yeah, that was the whole point. Oh, cool. I'm so excited, Brad.
Dude, I can't wait. Yeah, man, I'm super pumped. Congrats, man.
Yeah, honestly, you're one of the later persons to find out because I've been waiting to tell you live on an episode. I respect your commitment to the bit. Yeah, dude.
Yeah, dude. Oh, man. Well, I don't know where to go from there.
We'll be back next week with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Willy Wonka.
