disappointed but not disgusted

Rating: 9/10 (7 January 2002)

Jackson has made a good film, not a great film.
Probably the single thing that ticked me off the most is Jackson's fear of a slow spot. For example, instead of having Gandalf describe to Frodo some of the history of the ring, we see a flashback of ancient history. A chance is lost for interaction between Gandalf and Frodo. A chance is lost for the audience to understand Gandalf better, and to appreciate the relationship between Gandalf and Frodo.
The characters of the film are strange people, not easy to identify with. Only slow spots can build this identification. When Gandalf ran into trouble near the end of the film I just couldn't see why everyone was so upset; I hadn't seen any fierce personal loyalties develop.
I've also got some minor quibbles: (spoilers ahead) like: why did Jackson have to let a black rider get about a foot away from Frodo before being distracted by someone throwing a stick? why did Jackson allow the fellowship to be surrounded by goblins in Moria, only to have the goblins all run away when their friend the balrog showed up? why did we have to have that dumb wizard's fight (at the time I thought it was neat, but later I thought: better if they hadn't actually fought), couldn't the plot condensation have been done a bit better so that Gandalf didn't abandon Frodo five minutes into his flight to Rivendell?; why did the black riders have to get within arm's reach of Frodo in the last desperate ride to Rivendell? and why, o, why did the black riders have to be such wimps in battle...Aragorn fought off five of them that easily?
The first book was done badly. However, Jackson's style will probably shine brightly in the next two installments because they are more action-oriented. So far, the fight scenes have been fabulous, and I look forward to the battle of Helm's Deep and the great battle in Gondor.