A Flawed Adaptation of a Classic Novel

Rating: 5/10 (27 December 2001)

The Lord of the Rings is a novel that is impossible to completely make into a film, and this movie blatantly shows how not to have done so. Although the film is beautifully shot and is mildly entertaining it does not capture the Middle Earth of Tolkien's novels. First and most importantly, none of Tolkien's poetry is used in the film, which is probably the best and most lively part of the story. Secondly, none of the characters are properly introduced, and even ones such as Gandalf and Frodo are only barely fleshed out with their motivations. And most importantly, the characterization of the Hobbits are completely wrong...crack open The Hobbit to find out what they should look like. They are not just miniature humans...they are an entirely different creature!
The best parts of the film, hands down, were Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and Liv Tyler as Arwen. The Hobbits were all whining, stupid and uninteresting as characters. Yes, all of them, including Ian Holm, I'm afraid to say. Cate Blanchett is barely in the film at all.

This is not to say I hated this movie...it is visually stunning. Most of the special effects are good, but very convincing. The battle scene in the very beginning is extremely impressive, but one can tell that most of the soldiers were CGI.
A friend of mine said it best, the mood of this film is dour and depressing, not at all like the books. I initially gave Fellowship of the Ring, a 7, but as I consider it more, I would give it a 5. The animated films from the 1970s are much better and have the feeling of Middle Earth in the right way. This movie does not live up to its hype...and I shudder to think what will come of the next film. Peter Jackson has done much better, see his previous film Heavenly Creatures to see what he can really do with a movie!