Jackson achieves the impossible.

Rating: Null/10 (9 June 2003)

This film should have been the most disappointing film ever made. I should have hated it. Tolkien fans should have walked out of the cinema in their hundreds.
Peter Jackson has achieved what should by rights have been impossible in bringing Tolkien's world alive on the big screen. Whilst their are certainly fans of the book who have complaints about the movie, their are at least an equal number who loved it. And for this the film deserves every "best picture" award going.
The movie is breathtaking. I am not one for mindless action flicks, but I can appreciate the power of sheer cinematic spectacle, and Jackson manages to tread a fine line and displays talent for making the spectacular significant. The stunning landscapes and meticulous attention to detail create a beautiful depiction of Middle Earth. It is notoriously difficult to portray the characters of a well loved book in a visual art form, and there will certainly be some quibbles over the appearance of certain characters. I felt however that the film succeeded where all the drawings I have seen failed - it brought to life Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo and the rest just as I imagined them. The performances were brilliant. McKellen's Gandalf is the perfect balance between a gruff yet caring old man, and a powerful and noble wizard. Indeed, the delicate balance of the double natures which are so much a part of the novel were well handled by all. The elves, sorrowful and joyful, majestic yet kind, at once old and young, were uniformly well portrayed, with particular mention deserved by Blanchett and Weaving. I have heard comments that Mortenson was wooden, but I felt that his quiet and subtle portrayal perfectly suited the character of a man of noble birth under the guise of a ranger. Mortenson's measured, thoughtful portrayal added depth to a character who in the novel, due to Tolkien's use of the mythological genre, is almost underdeveloped.
The changes mad to the original text may cause concern for some, but in my opinion they were all in the true spirit of the book, and the fact that so much of the material was sourced from the Appendix is testament to the dedication to the text felt by all involved. Kudos to the screenwriters for being brave enough to write a true adaptation, rather than attempt to put Tolkien's long sections of narrative exposition on screen, which would not have made for an interesting movie. Tolkien wrote as if he were really translating ancient texts, giving extensive notes on translation of the languages, and the power of his work is such that he has created a whole mythology, one which we can believe has an independant existence. Thus, as with the King Arthur stories, it seems acceptable to consider the movie plot not a miss representation of a book, but of a slightly different version of a legend.