Average at best, not worthy of a spot in top 250 films

Rating: 3/10 (8 January 2002)

Are special effects all that is required by movie audiences? Is a quality story unimportant? Is character development unimportant? Is spectacular imagery all it takes to impress? Apparently so. This movie bears little resemblance to the works of Tolkien that I read 20 years ago at age 15 and, truth be told, I doubted that these novels could be effectively depicted on screen. Fellowship was too long by a third, (long movies I can handle; two hour plus films consisting of nothing but childish, repetitive chase scenes I refuse to tolerate) marred by a brilliant director whose past works were nothing short of genius but who has obviously sold out to the almighty dollar. The characters barely made an impression. Tolkien's rich characters should produce more excitement than a funeral dirge. A movie featuring these characters should be enthralling, enchanting. It was none of that. I actually fell asleep during the showing--an afternoon matineé. Does that tell You something? It tells me something, that Fellowship of the Ring is not worthy of such ridiculously high acclaim. I want to know how many critics were paid off. I don't blame the actors, who are all top notch. I blame the director, the screenwriter, and the unwise decision to make into a movie a complex novel which had zero chance of being successfully adapted without sacrificing characterization.