Unfaithful translation; adheres to plot and not spirit

Rating: 6/10 (5 December 2002)

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring was a decent action movie that was formed from much richer, more rewarding material. Having seen it twice now and re-read the books, I am extremely surprised that so many alleged Tolkien fans find this to be a worthy interpretation.
I'm generally not one to compare a book to a movie in order to judge the movie, but in this case it cannot be helped. There were so many things that were changed for no apparent reason which severely detracted from the quality of the movie and dumbed it down to some common denominator that is beneath the quality of the material.
As an example, the hobbit characters in the movie were incredibly weak, both of mind and of definition. What was the reason for making Pippin and Merry into the class clowns of The Shire? Would it not have made more sense to just leave them as friends who wanted to go along with Frodo? Why were the characters never defined in the movie? Why were plot points intentionally changed to make the hobbits look stupid? In the novel they each had a very rich definition. In the movie Sam is really the only hobbit character who has any sort of personality.
Furthermore, the movie made them into bumbling buffoons most of the time. It reminded me a lot of why I didn't like the Anakin character in Star Wars Episode I. What's even more insulting is that they were not this stupid in the novel.
If that lone were the only complaint that could be lodged, it probably would have gotten a more favorable review from me. But what about all the other little things changed to make the story fit into conventions? Basically all of the characters except Gandalf and Aragorn were one-dimensional sitcom characters. I was half expecting to see gimli and boromi pop up in a bad episode of Full House after the movie. In the novel they were far more articulate, intelligent, level-headed, and realistic. Each of the fellowship members seemed worthy of being on the journey, unlike in the movie where we feel as though they were sent to Rivendell because their own people thought they were too ignorant and stupid to stay.
There are many other examples: the obligatory last second jump onto the departing boat; the wildly exaggerated fight between aragorn and the nazgul; the lucky catch of the ring in the inn; all changed from the source material, all significantly cheaper and less intelligent. What it boiled down to for me was a very weak story. A lot of plot, but little substance. As far as I am concerned, the movie was as stiff and untrue to the story as a bullet-pointed summary of the plot would have been. Any time the movie departed from the novel, it was either to conserve time (an admirable goal at least) or to dumb the story down and make it more hollywood movie-ish.
All that being said, I did appreciate the production value, although some of the computer-generated special effects were very poorly done. The set designs were very good, a treat to watch. The music was on the whole very good. The acting almost elevated the material, but in the end it was not possible. Although I feel it was an untrue adaptation to concentrate mostly on action, the action scenes were done well enough.
Worth seeing, but hardly a great translation; certainly not among the best movies I've seen.