More than anyone could have hoped for

Rating: 10/10 (8 December 2011)

As one of thousands (if not millions) of people who harbored a Tolkien obsession in their youths, I anticipated the Lord of the Rings films with both excitement and dread. It's hard to remember now, but back in the year 2000 most of the world thought Tolkien's magnum opus was unfilmable. It took a hobbit-like, New Zealand native horror comedy director to prove them all wrong. Some fans were quick to point out the flaws, the deviations made from the source material, but for anyone who actually loved the spirit and the atmosphere of the novels, Peter Jackson's films were more than anyone could hope for.
A decade later, with the initial excitement, hype and backlash died down, it's easier to see these films for what they are, both the good and the bad. And while they're definitely flawed, and they definitely deviate from the novels quite often (a necessity), they're also - and I say this without second thoughts - the best mainstream films of the previous decade. When considered as a standalone creation and not an adaptation, they're excellent works of cinema, perfectly balancing a fast, energetic pace, impressive special effects that have aged shockingly well, exciting action scenes, great dramatic acting, immense amounts of pathos and drama and just the right amount of comic relief. Jackson also managed the singular achievement of using the trilogy format to the films' benefit; not since the original Star Wars trilogy has there been a trilogy of films in which not one disappoints, each one expending over the previous installments (in stark contrast with the Matrix - which was released around the same time, and in which, it grew gradually clearer, the creators had no idea what to do with the sequels).
The problems the films had are mostly derived from the difficulty of filming at such a large scope. Deviations from the original are mostly excused; "No Tom Bombadil" seems as ridiculous a complaint, in hindsight, as "Organic web shooters". The writers did a spectacular job of removing just enough and changing just enough to make Lord of the Rings work (spectacuarly well) as a work of cinema. My biggest complaint is about lack of characterization and background for some of the supporting character, mostly Boromir, Gimli and Legolas. Boromir was reduced to little more than a villain, though Sean Bean was good enough to give him the kind of depth and humanity the character should have; Gimli and Legolas were practically comic relief. The acting was so good all around, though, that it's hard to notice. In fact, no fantasy casting website could have put together a better cast, and nobody stands out as a "weak link".
Lord of the Rings is probably the only case in history of a series of films where all entries do nothing but compliment each other - no complete shift in genre (Aliens), no gradual declination (Matrix), no anticlimactic third installment (The Godfather, Back to the Future). For that reason it's hard for me to compare the three, though Fellowship of the Ring has a special place in my heart, because it was the real shocker - it was the crucial point in time when we found out Tolkien could be filmed after all. Every film in the series has its weaknesses and strengths - The Two Towers has timeless scenes with Gollum but some much slower ones focusing on Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas; Return of the King has lots of pathos, but relies too heavily on huge battle scenes and has one of the most disappointing endings in film history. But taken all together, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the most solid, most entertaining, most wonderfully impressive and memorable, most epic films ever made, and that will never change.