A great adaptation and a groundbreaking film in its own right

Rating: 10/10 (28 November 2002)

After having duly absorbed the extended DVD version of FotR, I would like to take a shot at a comment on this fine piece of work. To better understand my vantage point towards this film, you have to know that I've read 'The Lord of the Rings' many times over for the past twenty-one years, that, at age 14, it was one of the initial causes for my fascination with English language and literature (not my first language) and that I, as an avid cinephile have wondered many a time how this complex epic could ever be made into a movie worthy of its literary source. So, by having mulled over for some years, how the locations could look like on film, who could be cast in the main roles, how the flow of the story could be arranged and which parts would have to be drastically cut for reasons of pacing, I did enter the cinema with a very clear picture, what was absolutely necessary for a decent adaptation, what was the maximum I could hope for, and where potential pitfalls might be lurking.
After sitting through the prologue with its epic and action packed vista on the history of the ring giving way to the bucolic garden of the Shire, overwhelming joy was bubbling up inside me. This was exactly what I had hoped for, not only was the story represented in detail, the overall feeling of every scene was right on target, too.
Among the highlights I have to mention are the grandiose and meticulously chosen location shots and the seamlessly worked effects representing the magical nature of the mythic world of Middle-Earth without distracting from the story. Nearly every picture in the film shows some sort of 'effect' but only in a precious few the first-time viewer becomes aware of it, and even then it blends in remarkably well. No less there have to be compliments to the astonishing depth of back story worked both into the script - often in an off-handed and almost imperceptible way - and into every prop and piece of decoration. The cultural representation of invented cultures in the film does put to shame every fantasy or sci-fi movie shot until now and many a period piece or historic drama based on real world cultures. Next there are the actors, every one of them cast and played exquisitely to represent the very distinct characters in the story, not always exactly according to the books and obviously not necessarily to everyone's taste, but always fully consistent internally and to its background story. Despite the big differences in experience and word count within the cast there is never any danger for the film to turn into a star vehicle, always putting the real stars, the ring, the fellowship and Tolkien's story, first.
A lot of story elements from the book have been cut and even more have undergone changes big and small, but if one accepts Peter Jackson's right to alter peripheral parts of the narrative for dramatic reasons, the reasoning behind nearly every discrepancy has proven sound, prominently featuring both the wish to produce a movie appealing to fans and first-timers alike and the dramatic obligation to turn the often remote and epical characters of Tolkien's books into a full sensory presence of the big screen. And indeed, I do know of a lot of people never before in close contact with Tolkien's books, who came away from the film in awe and with respect for a genre they admitted to have gravely underestimated.
Even if this appears to be hardly possible, the extended DVD version still improves on this work of art, adding a lot of scenes giving additional back story and a feel for the world of Middle-Earth and re-cutting action scenes to more streamlined and dramatic versions.
So why do some people just don't seem to be able to see anything worthwhile in this movie? Clearly my taste isn't superior to theirs, but I would just venture the opinion that those people confronted the film with expectations it couldn't meet for perfectly good reasons. So let me tell you, this movie is not for you (and probably the second nor the third part of the story is neither), if you:

just don't like the notion of Fantasy with its strange creatures, magic, outlandish names and tales of fate and heroics.

insist on scripts adapted from a novel to exactly mirror the book, and still more importantly your interpretation of it.

can't stand action scenes and staged battles or do like action movies to be nothing but.

find it disturbing to have the reality of evil and temptation portrayed intensely and neither cynical nor comical.

like to have your characters either one-dimensional or monologueing their thoughts to death in front of the camera.

take the point of view, that romance or humour are misplaced within films exhibiting a serious and dark mood.

feel betrayed by a story that moves somewhat unpredictably throughout the movie and doesn't tie up nicely at the end of the film either.

take offence at being forced to sit through a three hour screening.

While I might come across as patronizing (because I have trouble appreciating these lines of thinking), I don't want to belittle the disappointment of anybody who didn't like the film. I just would like to give fair warning to anybody contemplating to view it at long last, to buy the DVD or to queue up for the upcoming parts. To all those able to overcome differing expectations and appreciate the lots of love, creativity and expertise the cast and the crew under Peter Jackson have poured into this adaptation, I just can say: 'Have lots of unadulterated fun and awe.'