Heresy here! In some ways, the film exceeds the book

Rating: 10/10 (24 December 2001)

Why does Tolkien's work persuade and endure? His genius lay not in his prose style, characterizations, or narrative structure, all of which are actually rather bland, but in the power of Naming. No motley assemblage of syllables, these, such as most fantasy works rely upon. This philologist-as-author could, with the surety of a wizard at work, clothe ideas with sounds that ring true. It is the names that give his works their resonance.
Just as sculpture demands a different approach from painting, likewise a movie cannot rest on the same strengths as a book. Exposition annoys; recitation wearies. The expressions and acts of characters are what films can best frame. When fine actors fill each role, the nuances of development need not be spelled out in plain-text.
Although I tried to keep anticipation in check, there was reason to believe that the director of a movie so raw and dark as 'Heavenly Creatures' would not sell this story short, or compromise its bittersweet flavor with cinematic syrup. It was a thrill to finally discover that Peter Jackson's rendition of the Rings saga was right-minded in every respect. The story demands that the characters move from point A to point B: this journey forms the movie's underlying and unavoidable structure. It is a travelogue. Along the way the most essential encounters have been retained, and the plot elements layered in an orderly and comprehensible way. I, for one, felt the departures and rearrangements from the book were salutary, and conveyed a readier understanding of some story elements (like Strider's reason for being a ranger) than a casual reading of the text had done.
The excellent performances of the actors did more than merely illustrate their written models. The contrasts inherent in Gandalf's nature; the conflicts implicit within Boromir's; the unlikely courage of the hobbits: these were realized through the actors' skill augmented by the camera's close attention. As a special treat, the non-humans displayed convincing racial differences that did not descend into caricature.
Those who criticize the fight scenes for not resembling the balletic choreography of 'The Matrix' or 'Star Wars: TPM' are simply making a category error. Broadly speaking, there are two schools in the presentation of combat. One approach smoothes and euphemizes it, creates something timeless and beautiful to look upon from a comfortable theatrical distance. The other offers a more participatory mode, communicating the ephemerality and tangled impressions of lived experience. The low-fantasy combat in FOTR was refreshing; it grounded the otherwise high-fantasy setting with an essential dose of immediacy. I was reminded of Branagh's 'Henry V', the pleasure of a battle that carried conviction and the possibility of pain.
It was the little things, at last, that carried the film. Most prized of all by this viewer were the details that made the One Ring emerge as a full-fledged character, motivated and manipulating, where in the book it had seemed little more than an abstract symbol of power.