Yes, it's condensed, but Wow!

Rating: 10/10 (28 December 2001)

The enormous risk in this particular film is that so many liberties might be taken with events and dialog that it becomes yet another sword and sorcery hatchet job. Not so with "The Fellowship of the Ring."
Peter Jackson, the director (and part screenwriter) decided to give some background to the Ring right away to set the stage for those poor unfortunates in the audience who have not read the novel. It is simply splendid. A film can fill in details not given in a novel since action can be so hard--and take so long--to describe. I could quibble with the manner in which Isildur, Aragorn's ancestor, cut the ring from Sauron's hand; but, I must admit, that the sequence is thrilling and Sauron himself is wonderfully fearsome.
The sets are marvelous. The actors are spot on. Ian Holm, cast as Bilbo, was an inspired choice. Ian McKellen as Gandalf is equally as good. And Christopher Lee as Saruman is glorious. What a voice!
As far as the language used in the film I can report that I am well satisfied with the pronunciation of the little bits that were used. I got a small thrill from hearing the voice of Sauron repeating, "Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul," etc., at a few points. The voice was almost subliminal but I chimed right in out loud. I've known that verse since I was 16.
As I'm writing this I'm thinking of all the "liberties" taken by the film makers with the story...but I forgive them because they had an immense task: to make a "Reader's Digest" version of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and make it visually compelling. They have done so in spades.
There are things about the film that remind me how well stories in a book can be rendered visually. The orcs crawling down the pillars in Moria; the Balrog (oh, my god!); the roof of Orthanc; the way Frodo sees the world when he wears the Ring; the flood of the river Bruinen; the Watcher in the water; Rivendell; Bilbo's hobbit hole; the opportunity Isildur had to destroy the Ring at the end of the Second Age; Gollum (!); the ruins of the tower of Amon Sul and the attack of the Nazgul; the pillars of the Argonath; Minas Tirith...to see these things after having read the novel a couple dozen times is really quite marvelous. It in no way spoils what I see in my mind's eye because the vision of Peter Jackson is quite as good if not better. Using the talents of Alan Lee and John Howe, two of the best-known Tolkien illustrators, was very smart.
Yes, there were times while watching the film that my mental images clashed with Jackson's approach. And, inevitably, there are things that get short shrift and things that are not explained well enough. I figure that most people will wonder how Bilbo got so old so quickly after leaving the Shire. In the novel it's clear that Frodo doesn't set out with the Ring for another 17 years after Bilbo departs; in the movie it seems like it can't be more than six months. I also imagine that people unfamiliar with the novel will wonder why Frodo and company stopped in Lothlorien at all and what was the purpose of looking in Galadriel's mirror.
Other things missing include the building of the friendship between Gimli and Legolas; Frodo's song at The Prancing Pony; Tom Bombadil; the Barrow wights; Farmer Maggot; the "conspiracy" of Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Fatty Bolger; the importance of Bill the pony to Sam; Glorfindel, the Elf; the lake of Kheled Zaram; dealing with the wound that Frodo got in the Chamber of Mazarbul; and the gifts that Galadriel gave to the other members of the Fellowship besides Frodo.
But, golly whollickers! There are plenty of things that make up for those missing events. The "birth" of a new type of orc in Orthanc; the surprisingly good performance of Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn (I'd only seen him in 'G. I. Jane'); superb characterizations by Sean Bean as Boromir and Orlando Bloom as Legolas--whoa! that guy can shoot a bow!; the wonderfully horrible settings of the Dark Tower, Mount Doom, and the ring of Isengard; the absolutely, flat-out, incredibly fabulous Moria...and especially the Balrog.
If you have any appreciation for the action/adventure genre you won't be disappointed. If you've read the trilogy then I believe that you will find that the movie sets a new high water mark for the rendering of novels into film. This movie is enough to make me want to buy a DVD player in preparation for the release of the DVD. And the music is good, too!
It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen (I still put 'Alien' and 'Silence of the Lambs' and a few others ahead) but it was wonderfully entertaining. Its greatest value for me, I think, is that, once again, I was treated to the spectacle of someone else's imagination made tangible and memorable. It stimulates my own way beyond what I thought possible and increases my undying appreciation for Tolkien's masterpiece.
See it!