Lord of the under achievers (small spoiler)

Rating: 7/10 (19 December 2001)

Well I really, really, really wanted to like this film. But unfortunately I didn't. If you have read the book you will probably be dissapointed, if you haven't you will probably love the film. It seems to make any sense to me when you adapt a books and then change bits of it. I see Peter Jackson as being a very talented writer and I wish he had written a fantasy film but not an adaption of Lord of the Rings.
The acting is fine, with more good performances than bad, the effects are wonderful, better than anything in harry Potter, or the Star Wars Episode 1. The film score is fine, but in my view not very original or exciting. I found several very annoying things about the film though, firstly the use of blue filters took away much of the wonder of the film. secondly, I found the editing to be terrible at times especially during the battle scenes, which have no sense of feeling. Fast cutting and medium shots are meant to show pace and chaos during battle and can work when done will i.e Gladiator, which is saved by its battle scenes. Lord of the Rings fails to put any feeling into most of the fight scenes which did look chaotic but not in a good way. Also the battle scene between Gandalf and Saruman to be very dissapointing, more like a bad wrestling match with staffs, than a fight between two of the most powerful wizards on middle earth.
Hopefully, My expectations were to high and I may grow to like the film over time, but for the moment I feel both cheated and frustrated with the film.