Not sure I saw the same movie as everyone else

Rating: 4/10 (22 December 2001)

Based on the long-running hype surrounding this movie, not to mention the critical raves it has generally received, I knew that one of two things would happen when I went to see this movie:
1) It would truly live up to the hype as one of the greatest movies of all time or,
2) It would not match up.
I am not surprised that, given the nature of mainstream, Hollywood blockbusters, that I fall into the second category. "The Fellowship of the Ring", though exciting in parts, fails to maintain a constant stream of interest and energy, thus making it fall far short of the "epic" that many viewers are already calling it.
Since most people on planet Earth are already familiar with the story, I won't go into great detail here re-creating it. From a plotting standpoint, the movie has several problems. Since Tolkien's work is so masterfully detailed, it would be difficult to completely portray every character with the depth and understanding that he did. But the beginning of the movie does just that, as the moviegoer is painted an excellent picture of the Hobbit Shire and the beauty and peace that this diminutive-sized but big-hearted race has achieved. But then the movie gets bogged down.
Character after character is hastily introduced, as we are pushed through fight scene after fight scene. "Fellowship" suffers from the same syndrome that many action movies suffer from: despite the fact that the heroes are constantly pitted against insurmountable odds (in numbers, resources, etc.), they never seem to be in any real danger. And the movie generally stages a fight scene, gives the audience a few minutes to breathe, and then stages another fight scene. Although the fights are done well, what is lost is a true understanding of characters, as we never really get to know any of the main combatants. Worse yet, we eventually forget why they're fighting in the first place, since so many of the fight scenes fail to explain what is going on.
Visually, the movie is occasionally stunning. But there are certain scenes (like the battle scene at the beginning of the movie) that look obviously computer-generated. Even the tightest military formation does not move in complete synce unless it is a COMPUTER SIMULATION. I did think that the camera angles and the way that the movie played with the actors' height was pretty great, though.
I've heard a lot about how the acting in this movie was tremendous, but this is not a character-driven movie, so how can you tell? Except for Elijah Wood, I didn't feel like anyone really gave a performance worth remembering. There were no bad performances, mind you, but no one (except for Wood) really stood out.
The monotony of the fight scenes made me anxious for the movie to end. I could feel the length of this movie, and that's generally not a good sign, unless you're dealing with an historical piece like "Schindler's List" or "Ghandi", where the time isn't as important as the story that's being told.
In the end, this movie is not a "Star Wars" or a "Godfather" or anything of that nature. It morphs into a generic action feature that presents its audience with some exciting scenes, but ultimately fails to deliver a cohesive movie. I give it a 4/10, since it has some value, but isn't anywhere near the "classic" that people are hastily calling it.
A final note on this movie being #1 in the IMDB. I wouldn't get worked up about this. Though the database has a great deal of value, weighing the historical importance of movie is difficult. We will have a more balanced picture 10 to 20 years from now about the importance of this movie. Even great movies that seemed like they would last forever after they were released (remember "The English Patient"?) have faded into the background after a few years.