First, sky-blue contacts. Then, in front of a mirror, make your mouth an open square. Flare your nostrils. Wrinkle that brow. Really, really, squish it up good. Open your eyes to about f/1. Tighten your throat. Suck in your cheeks. There, you are now indistinguishable from the bearer of the One True Ring.
I was looking for that face the entire movie (I just saw it for a second time). The face never appeared. And Wood says on the DVD (and I think Jackson seconds it) that his eyes are not enhanced at all. Contacts can't do that.
This is what annoys me about criticism, or what passes for it. I love Stephen Hunter's work - I LOVE IT. I love his writing, I think he's one of the best journalists around today. But every once in a while, every now and then, he says something so stupid and so I'm-just-knocking-this-in-this-way-because-I-can that it shakes my faith in his opinions. I'm not sure which matters more in his case, the writing or the opinions and insights. If you love a movie the way he professes to love some of the movies he reviews, and then you spend enough time in your review recreating a moment that wasn't there just for a funny line that downplays the effort of playing well the most thankless role in a film...why should I believe you anymore, even if your writing is good? Where's your love for the movie, if you can spend so much time doing that? The rest of the review suggests he loves this movie, but he prattles on about hair care products and lack of shampoo on set, and then this nonexistent Frodo face. I mean, did he do the face in the mirror? I'm so confused. And it would have been really realistic if Aragorn had come back from his little cliffhang looking like he just stepped out of a salon. I mean, honestly. The best writers out there, giving us haircare and face-pulling for the sake of a laugh and nothing more. Bah.