Third time unlucky.

Rating: 9/10 (15 August 2002)

Maybe it was the hype, the mass mythological aura that surrounded the whole thing, the promotion that read "Be a part of history", but when I first saw "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" I thought it was a masterpiece. How wrong I was.
This film is a spectactular achievement, just to get you started. It does a most audacious and ambitious thing, in that it creates an epic sweep and an entire world, in fact, out of subject matter that is little more than droll, classical fantasy (For those who haven't read the book). Similar to the original "Star Wars", this film does a 360 degree turn on our original perceptions on how a fantasy story can be told. As Dorothy told us, we're not in Kansas anymore. This film has a visual texture unlike anything I have seen before, at least on film. And yet this is precisely the reason I am also depressed by it.
Has anyone read "The Lord of the Rings" lately? Did anyone notice how fondly Tolkien felt for his little men and women of Hobbiton and the rest of the shire? The Hobbits themselves are revolutionary without having to bother with the world they inhabit. The world in question, Middle Earth, seems - concieved from the book - in a gentler time when action was not the key word but words were. The words used in the book are elegiac, ponderous and naive, similar to the ones in "The Wizard of Oz". The descriptions are laborious on unnecessary details so we can giggle with delight at the funny habits of characters that NEVER CHANGE!!! The Hobbits are the heroes because they are unique. I've seen men fight before. I've seen swordplay and bows and arrows and axes. True, I've not seen them done as well as they were in the movie, but still, something's missing.
The movie is often loud with its action sequences and epic vistas. If there is comfort, it comes from the fact that there are great actors sprouting wistful dialogue in the middle of it all. The camera moves up and around and through and under and over and here and there and everywhere like a Disney animation gone haywire. For some reason there is charm in all these things because there are great actors sprouting wistful dialogue in the middle of it all.
Yes, I though it was a masterpiece at first. I had not read the book, and I still have not read it entirely. But there is no doubt in my mind that as I was reading the book a different movie emerged in my mind to the one I had seen. The novel, by JRR Tolkien, is an epic not because of scale or development but because of its mythological structure and the journey taken by its lead characters. The book is about all the little things that occur in the cracks of the central purpose. The movie is about the central purpose. There is no time for singing songs or meeting interesting people. There is something not quite right when the most dangerous artefact in the history of the middle world has been through generation after generation without reaching its full potential and then suddenly BAM! We have to destory this ring, fast!!!!! The book didn't think so and I don't think so.
That said, the movie brings definition to the ring that perhaps is above all the other characters in the movie. The One Ring to Rule Them All is a character in itself and the movies greatest achievement is exploring the themes relating between it and its carriers. Each character has a different response to the One Ring which elevates the reasoning for character dimension and development. It also builds a satisfactory momentum which carries to scene after scene of one "new" thing after another. On the visual level the movie captures an originality that I had not anticipated. The gorgeous design is a major plus for me, personally, and it allows for those moments that you feel were absolutely right. Each place the heroes visit or run through is immaculate in understanding Tolkien's vision. Perhaps that is because the filmmakers studied the water colour paintings by Tolkien very closely. Some sequences are absolutely awe-inspiring as images alone. They sort of paint over the rusty hinges.
Another plus for me was the casting. I don't think anyone could have asked for better actors and for a big-budget action movie these guys were given the best dialogue anyone could ask for. It crackles with wit and energy between each actor. Ian McKellan has some of the best moments in the movie. He carries a lot of this film on his shoulders.
Another plus was the musical score. This is one soundtrack I would love to own.
All of the above don't really add up to much of an opinion, I know. I both love this movie and am disappointed by it. I looked into "Fellowship" the book and noticed that it consisted of two books. The first book could have made a movie just as long as this one, and a more family-oriented one. In fact, my vision for these films would be to make seven movies and not three, each based on the books separating different stories - like acts in a play. It would have given "Harry Potter" a run for its money. It would have been a movie with the same design, more technicolour in its photography, similar special effects and it would have been something of a musical. But since that movie does not exist, I must settle for this one. And at the end of the day, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
9/10
P.S.: I can't wait for the next ones.