Short of Perfection but still good.

Rating: Null/10 (21 December 2001)

Watching this movie is breathtaking. The visual cinematography and effects certainly raise the quality of this film to "potential" epic standards. However, as the cliche goes, special effects DO NOT make a movie great. And in Lord of the Rings, this aspect of the film is so stunning that it could easily cloud one's honest objective critiquing of the "not-yet-epic" first installment.
Through the course of this film I began to feel more and more out of touch with the characters. This feeling ironically came at a climax towards the middle-end of the film when Frodo is told that the 9 member Fellowship was inevitably breaking apart. I knew that something was seriously missing from this film upon hearing this dialogue, because my first instinctive thought was: "No kidding!" - and I wasn't thinking in terms of the story being told.

The biggest mistaken about this film is the lack of "character" in the characters. This is especially disappointing in the development of Frodo. You will notice that all during the Fellowship journey, Frodo, the quintessential MAIN character mind you, utters about as many meaningful words as Raymond Babbitt (Rainman). I found myself speaking on behalf of the other characters with a resounding "Where the H*LL have you been!" when Frodo finally says something meaningful instead of standing around with that permanent stunned "OH My God" look on his face. The other character's roles seemed a little more defined, Viggo Mortensen as Strider mostly, but one strong well developed character alone is not enough to carry a film as broad as this. The others should have added more. Instead, too many scenes are concluded with some sort of on-liner as the bulk of their dialogue. Some cheesy, some humorous, but definitely NOT the ideal STYLE if director Peter Jackson wishes his audience to take him seriously.
Unfortunately it is this kind of indecisiveness that sabotages most "epic" efforts. The movie has a very dark and dreary feel with an excellent sense of reality (life in which heads DO get chopped off and dirt does make you dirty) and yet he strays from that and tries too hard to appeal to the younger audience as well with elements of a kiddie movie. I know the ideal is for everyone to enjoy the film but "reality" is that you can't please everyone. As a raved fan of Lord of the Rings, I wish the director would have maintained the same theme throughout the movie, be it a serious epic or an innocent clean adventure, instead of trying to blend a clean kiddie feel here and there with a "working" dirty real-life theme for which the film began. You can't have both, it just doesn't work. It puts more butts in seats but taints the films identity. Example - The Godfather didn't break the box office, but undoubtably ranks as one of the best films ever made. Why? Because Don Corleone never said something cheesy before or after ever climatic scene for the sake of a on-liner - Kiddie Movie characteristic #4!

In all the movie was very entertaining. The 3 hours didn't feel too long because of the balance of the film. The ending didn't feel sudden or abrupt but rather expected, assuming one knows it's the first of a 3 part "not-yet-epic". Still the ending doesn't possess an element leaving you anxiously wanting something. Like for example the end of The Empire Strikes Back - ("Oh My God, is it true! Is Vader really Luke's father??!!!"). There isn't any dramatic anxiety produced like that at the end of Fellowship and it does cause for a little lack of luster but not enough to keep everyone from seeing the second installment next year, including me. But hopefully the second film will address the issues of who these characters REALLY are, as well as form a true identity of what kind of theme this trilogy wishes to take on.
8.5 out of 10