Peter Jackson did it - slightly flawed but still a masterpiece

Rating: 9/10 (15 January 2002)

Firstly let me congratulate Peter Jackson on making a great adaptation of "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings" and, in the process, making the greatest fantasy movie so far.
Let me tackle some of the negative comments people have commented first. "It's not completely faithful to the book" - Well of course it isn't. It's an adaptation, it's using the source material of the book to create the movie. Imagine if Jackson had left Tom Bombadil in it? We'd have had the return of Jar Jar Binks. People who complain too much about deviating from the source material (which I read and enjoyed) need to sit back and just enjoy what he has done with the movie: He could have done a lot much worse and very little better. "It's too long" - No it isn't. It needs the length of time to give the book a decent treatment. Elements such as the council of Elrond or other Elvish bits all add to the texture of Middle Earth that Jackson is building up. Despite the length of the picture there's little in the movie that I would have cut out as it all adds to the viewing experience. "Some of the dialogue is hammy" - For those who complain about some of the script recall that this is a fantasy epic and these lines have place here. It's part of the genre.
What's good about the movie? Script - Generally well paced. The points where the pacing slows are due to the neccessity of being faithful to the original and manage to add to the rich background (whatever you may think of the moments of the elves they sure look gorgeous).
Acting - Well done! I had mixed reservations hearing Elijah Wood would be cast as Frodo but they proved groundless. Everyone was pretty much perfect for their part and I too must single out Ian McKellen for exceptional praise. Perfect casting.
Directing - What can I say? Jackson I love you. You did something which we feared nobody could do. He starts with an incredible intro as he recounts the history of the One Ring - a great way to get the blood pumping because he knows it will be awhile after that before we see some large action. But when we do see action we see it on an epic large scale. LOTR:TFOTR needs a cinema screen to be screen - watching as the camera pans around huge landscapes. I remember watching one scene, thinking how I would really love if Jackson made the camera plunge off the side of the tower and into the grounds below... and then he did it. He was making the movie exactly how I wanted it. That's great stuff.

Does the movie have flaws? Sure it has but a lot of those rest with the conventions of adapting from a book. It's hard to get characterisation in for example so we find out, and care not much, about Pippin and Merry for example. There's certain pieces which work well in a book - such as the Council of Elrond - which can slow the movie down sometimes. There's the obvious fact that the movie leaves us hanging but since this is but a third of the total picture I can forgive that.

In the end "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" succeeds. It's not the greatest movie of all time in my opinion - but it is damn good. It's one of the best of 2001 (competing only with "Amélie" and "Moulin Rouge!") and far and away the best fantasy movie ever. It's got the epicness of Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" and the intense action of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan". Whatever you do make sure you see this in the cinema. More than once. And then buy the DVD. This is why we have movies. 9.5/10