The best it could be

Rating: 10/10 (14 January 2002)

This has got to be the hardest story ever to tell in pictures; anyone who's read the book more than once has surely already formed their own mental images of the way Middle Earth and its residences should appear. How do you realize a million people's daydreams? Think about this, too: the movie cost about a million dollars. Titanic cost nearly twice that. Go figure.

SPOILERS HERE:
Personally, I was both dazzled and disappointed. Dazzled because Gandalf, the hobbits, the birthday party, and Gimli all looked exactly as I'd pictured. Rivendell, Hobbiton, and Mordor all one-upped my own imagination and I prefer the director's vision to my own. The script was nearly true to the story (that I've read more than 20 times) and most of the abbreviations were acceptable. The movie, as a stand-alone piece is infinitely more beautiful than the latest offering from star wars.
My disappointments were few, but one in particular was disconcerting. I found myself jarred from total immersion in the piece by some poorly-executed cuts. I found this to be true as the hobbits head for Weathertop with Aragorn, and again when the fellowship heads for the mountain.
The other irritation is the relationship between Gimli and Legolas, a great source of amusement in the books, is not given enough of a pass. In fact, Legolas' role in this movie (I'm sure it will be expanded in the next two, but still) is merely to show off some rather keen special effects (he walks on snow, slings arrows like one of those ball delivery systems for learning tennis) and look absolutely stunningly elfishly beautiful. Unfortunate. The visit to Loth Lorien by the party reveals that the destruction of the ring will not only end the evil in Middle Earth, it will also remove from it the most valued of treasures. This is part of what makes Tolkien's stories so real; it is not all good and evil; the characters have their faults AND their virtues, consequences are not just, "do this, and we'll all live happily ever after", more, a choice between greater goods and lesser evils, with every good thing having that twinge of sadness to it that so mirrors our daily lives. Without this piece, Tolkien's work would have been just another fantasy book on the shelves, and the director's omission, though understandable, was, I believe, a poor choice.
My last beef has to do with Loth Lorien itself. Though beautiful, it felt, to me, and this is COMPLETELY subjective, to be more structured than it should be. Loth Lorien in my mind was the most organic of places, like what you might see if you looked at moss under a microscope. It's a petty beef, though.
:END OF SPOILER I think it definitely deserves best picture, as it has certainly advanced both the art and science of movie making to new heights. Also think Ian McKellen deserves a nod for his portrayal of Gandalf, and absolutely Peter Jackson deserves accolades and a statue for what he's created.

And when it comes out on DVD, I'll be sure to buy two, as I'm guaranteed to wear out the first one in nothing short of a month.