What a disappointment!

Rating: 6/10 (20 December 2001)

LOTR: FOTR is not a bad film. It's moderately entertaining and it'll pass the time adequately. But it certainly isn't what we, the movie buffs and Tolkien fans, were expecting. Some comments:
If you're going to make a movie about Middle Earth, make it look right. The scenery is very nice, and so is the set design, but many of the pivotal scenes look just plain cheesy. The matte paintings that seem to be a prominent feature of almost every exterior scene (and Moria) are generally poor. Check out the non-moving waterfalls in some of the particularly cruddy Rivendell exterior shots, just as an example. They just didn't feel *real*. I never passed beyond that boundary of suspension of disbelief. Now, this may seem like a trivial complaint, but it made me realise that I was watching a mere movie.
And speaking of sucky CGI effects, most of the monsters were remarkably unrealistic. The film seemed to suffer from the "Mummy Returns" syndrome - thinking you can get away with lousy effects if you speed it up enough and use lots of annoying camera angles. The cave troll was a particularly good example of this - a potentially exciting action sequence ruined by poor CGI and irritating/confusing camera work.
Examples of CGI cheesiness: -The fireworks at Bilbo's farewell party, -Many of the exterior scenes featuring landscapes (the real thing) and ruins/buildings (a very obvious CGI/matte inclusion). -The cave troll. Very poorly animated - the filmmakers speeded up the action to try to hide this. It didn't work, though!
What was with the jumpy cinematography in the battle scenes? It was just plain annoying.
Too much Saruman! They must have gotten Christopher Lee really cheap, because there were endless swooping helicopter-view shots of him and his orcs, none of which added anything to the film. His role has been greatly expanded from the book, without any real benefit to anyone.
The filmmakers obviously thought that we were stupid, because they seemed to spend a lot of time refreshing us about just how Sauron lost the ring. Get used to the prologue's shot of the ring on his dismembered hand because you'll see it a lot.
And in case you're wondering why this is a three-hour movie, it's because a large portion of it consists of close up shots of the Ring, either on various tables or on Elijah Wood's palm.
The casting was generally good. Sadly, though, the key character, Wood as Frodo Baggins, seemed to spend a lot of the film either looking confused or looking scared; somewhat lacking in character development. I loved Ian McKellan as Gandalf - very charismatic and likeable. Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli were very well-cast, and added a lot to the film. Pity about a simian-looking Hugo Weaving as Elrond. And what was with Liv Tyler in there anyway? And as for Cate Blanchett as Galadriel - she was just plain creepy. Why make some of the elves look like escapees from "Planet of the Apes"?
I think the filmmakers got orcs and zombies confused. The orcs in this looked a lot more like the undead - dripping flesh, etc. Especially those serious gravity-defying wall-climbing moves they were doing in Moria!
The main Uruk reminded me of Darth Maul - looks vicious and gets about five minutes of teeth-baring screen time.
The film felt gloomy and dark, without the hope and the spirit that pervaded even the darkest moments of the books. Lorien, instead of being a place of beauty that Frodo would loved to have returned to, was just creepy.
Where was the character development? What did the characters get out of the story? At the end, what made Frodo a different hobbit to his persona in the beginning? In the book, quite a lot, but in the film, nothing. What drove any of the characters? The film gave us lots of insight into their interactions with CGI monsters, but that's about it. The characters in the film were defined only by the cleanliness of their hair rather than the unique people they were in the book.
The pacing was poor. Sharp action sequences combined with long, drawn-out dialogue and "mystical" moments. Just as you were getting used to one aspect of the film, another one appeared jarringly.
On the other hand, there were some exceptional moments and some true cinematic highlights: Ian McKellen as Gandalf was towering. His sheer presence made some of the more tedious scenes worthwhile. His quirky humour made the character come to life. I was expecting Legolas to be an effeminate blonde elf, but Orlando Bloom plays him with vitality and charm. He's also extremely physical - this is the sort of archer you'd like to have on your side. Viggo Mortensen creates a memorably physical Aragorn - he really *is* Strider. But the acting honours in the fellowship belong to Sean Bean, who is a tormented yet ultimately noble Boromir. He's possibly the greatest revelation in the cast. Ian Holm is also worth a mention, playing Bilbo. He has a very memorable and startling moment with Frodo in Rivendell.
I loved the tension of the Moria scenes. Peter Jackson created a true sense of claustrophobia and desperation. Very true to the book.
I also loved the creation of the Shire. The sets were wonderful and very realistic. Pity that trend didn't continue.
The Nazgul were excellent - the sound effects were really stomach-turning. The Moria and Balrog sequence (apart from the orcs) was pretty good - with an excellent sense of impending doom. The sequences where Frodo wore the ring were brilliantly done, and really conveyed the sense of danger.
The soundtrack is really good, and appropriately used.
Now, don't get me wrong - LOTR would be a much better film if you went in there expecting a lot less. It's not intrinsically bad - it's just the small things that take it from being great to being merely mediocre.