WANTED TO LIKE IT SO MUCH...

Rating: Null/10 (24 December 2001)

I have read The Silmarillion (guess you can't underline on this thing...), The Hobbit, and The Lord of Rings "trilogy." Loved them. Don't know if I would anoint Tolkien as the greatest-fantasy-writer-of-all-time. Firstly, I lack any such official authority. Secondly, I have not read all fantasies ever written. Lastly, there're an awful lot of good fantasies out there. Nonetheless, the hobbit books are pretty amazing stuff.

I have somewhat loosely followed the production and the marketing of the New Line picture. Like many, I started out skeptical, especially after having learned that Elijah Wood was cast as Frodo. Elijah Wood's distinguished acting career, heretofore in my recollection, had been encapsulated into his one (and pretty much only) predominant facial expression, which can probably best be described with Joey-Tribiani's-(as-acting-coach)-pull-thigh-hairs-out-with-fingers-through- hole-in-pocket-to-convey-astonishment/surprise-with-painful-concentration technique.
But, somewhat irrelevant quibble aside, as critical reviews came rolling in overwhelmingly positive, and, more importantly, after having witnessed the unprecendentedly positive viewer-reviews posted on IMDB, I became swayed enough to be fully prepared to award the "my favorite movie of all time" honor to the Jackson film. While cautioning myself against being overly expectant, I, nonetheless, was fully prepared to be intoxicated by the movie's atmosphere, the acting, the heroism, the drama, the romance (in The Fellowship?!), the action, the everything, as many others seemed only too delighted to claim. Without any flippancy, I really, really wanted to like this movie. Because, to do so would have necessitated my having found fulfillment in its world, similarly to how I had found fulfillment in the world created in my head from having read the novels. I would have loved to have had an experience which would have resulted in my incessant gushing of praise for the film in this review.
I wanted to be yet another fan who respectfully protested the "brevity" of the running time, because my enrapture in the film would have caused a desire for it to never end. I wanted to be yet another fan who impatiently cursed in exasperation the studio marketing department's decision to put an entire forlorn, desperate year between the installments. I wanted to be so impressed with the brilliance of Jackson that, immediately following the movie, I wanted to run out, and finally rent "Heavenly Creatures," which previously had yet to successfully survive the "now, which one should I watch?" sweepstakes at the local Blockbuster.
It seems, now, that, having watched "The Fellowship," "Heavenly Creatures" will fare no better against its next video opponent. I should point out, before beginning my lament, that, immediately following the movie, I made the effort to ask a few moviegoers about their experiences. Most seemed to have really liked it. A kid, perhaps about 8 or 9, said he'd thought that it was really good. Another kid, about 50 to 55, said the same, and then gave it a 9 out of 10. That's pretty good praise, I would have to say.

As for me, I was so very disappointed that I had found the film so very disappointing. And it had very little, if anything, to do with any deviations between the movie and the books. It, for me, was just so uninvolving that, many times during the movie, I popped out of myself, and, levitating above my sitted self, stared intermittently between the screen and my sitted self, and wondered if it could be possible that I was watching some other version, some other cut, that none of the other IMDB reviewers had seen. How could their experiences, so involved, so riveted, so enraptured, so moved, so amazed, be so different from mine?

So many people have had so blissfully stated that how they had pictured, in their minds, the Shire, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Moria, Mordor, etc., were so faithfully recreated in stunning visual spectacle before their very eyes in the movie. For me, the worlds created with Tolkien's words and my mind were so much richer AND FANTASTICAL, that the screen paled immeasurably in comparison. Everything was too REAL. The CGI worlds, primarily Lothlorien, Moria, and Mordor, were significantly more "mystical" than the others, where considerably more "real" nature was "used." Yet, even among these CGI worlds, only Mordor, it seemed to me, was somewhat on the mark. Even then, it needed to be far more vast, far less "crowded" and "busy," and far more foreboding. The Shire, Rivendell, etc., where more natural surroundings were incorporated, were, simply put, too plain. Too real. There was no magic. No mysticism.
Many people have made attempts to compare the CGI between WETA and ILM. Both, to the extent allowed by current technology, have done good jobs. There's no doubt, however, when CGI is employed. For those wanting probably about the most inspired use of computer animation yet, with no pretense of "standing in" for real life, rent a DVD of "Final Fantasy." Not a great story, but quite a work of art.
Acting. Again, my experience, especially with regard to Elijah Wood as Frodo (and, really, pretty much all the hobbits in the movie) was completely diametrical to those of seemingly most. Sadly, Wood's singular expression is just as preeminent here as in his other work. This "singular expression" is just as intrinsically exclusive to, and definitive of, Wood as an actor, as each "singular expression" is for other actors such as Clint Eastwood, Kevin Costner, and Keannu Reeves. Not to suggest that they can't be effective as actors necessarily, but rather that whatever character they may be that they are chosen to play have to be structured/tailored around their, again, singular expressions/limited flexibilities for there to exist any chance at efficacy. Here, Wood, or another actor perhaps, certainly could have done more with the role of Frodo.
Perhaps due to time constraints, none of the characters were terribly deeply drawn. Ian Holm, as Bilbo, probably did as much as he could with his role, although, none of the hobbits, including Bilbo, looked like the hobbits in my head. The CGI altering of his face in Rivendell had an effect on the audience, but, I could've done without it. Gandalf, Ian McKellen (sp.?), as with Holm, did well with what he had, but, again, far short of my expectations/imagination. For me, there was a fundamental problem with casting, again totally contrary to popular sentiment. Although I tend to want to think that far better choices could have been made casting-wise, it may also be a possibility that, ultimately, using human actors may never quite achieve what I would need from the characters. Don't know. The elves are drawn to a sickening level of stereotype. The ethereal aura about them, the soft voices, the expressionless faces, etc. Again, didn't work for me. And I'm a fan of Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler. You wanna see Liv Tyler in a good role? Watch "One Night at McCool's." Cate Blanchett? Just about anything else.
Casting for Aragorn -- disappointing. I'm sure Mortensen is a good guy, and all, but, Viggo was as inappropriately cast for Aragorn as the rockstar guy was in "Almost Famous." But, then, "Almost Famous" was probably one of the worst cast movies of all time... Bean, Boromir, did a fairly good job, although, as with, really, all the characters, I have far more affection for Boromir in the book.
Gimli? Just a totally unrecognizable Rys-Davies in dwarf mode, with a temper, and not much else. Drawn very shallowly. Again, none of the characters are drawn sufficiently deeply.
If you're looking for deeply affected scenes, such as the "You will not be Caesar" scene between Joaquin Phoenix and Richard Harris in "Gladiator," or the flying plastic bag scene in "American Beauty," among other similarly beautiful scenes in both movies, "The Fellowship" is not it.

The battle scenes. The action. The suspense. The first battle scene, in Mordor, during the narration of the history of the Ring, which is largely augmented with CGI, was probably the best. Nonetheless, nothing in comparison with the opening battle scene in "Gladiator," for example, or, in more modern warfare, with the opening scene in "Saving Private Ryan." Each subsequent fight scenes are over-cut, lending a decided feeling of masking the lack of skilled fighting. None of the actors seemed to have gotten the lessons and practice necessary to portray expert swordsmanship, unlike the gladiators in "Gladiator," or the Wu-dan priest in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." I wasn't as impressed with "Crouching" as most seemed to have been; yet, I thought the actor's fight scenes were the most beautiful of such scenes I had ever seen. And, although he had practiced extensively for 6 months in preparation for the film, he previously had never been involved in the martial arts. Far more beautiful than the fighting of the women protagonists in "Crouching," and they were actual martial arts experts. I digress.
The suspense. For me, there was precious little. The Uruk-hai, who the movie portrayed as being far more elite than mere Orcs, were no tougher to fight than Orcs. Neither were the Nazguls. The unsophisticated fight scenes eminently betrayed actors under make-up and costume instead of hardened and skilled soldiers proficiently carrying out their orders to kill. So many people, including Ebert, have commented on how frightening the Ring-wraiths were in the movie. Again, I deviate. They weren't frightening, and their chases weren't suspenseful. Wow, I'm really tearing into this movie, arent' I?...
The score. Marked the scenes. Distinctive? No. Distinctive scores? John Williams (although, if you're familiar with his influences, you'll realize that he's not the most original composer in the world, either...) with his "Star Wars"-related scores, his "Superman" scores. Hans Zimmer with the score for the "Gladiator." Bill Conti with "Rocky," etc. Definitely not this score.
Watching "The Fellowship," especially considering it in the context of my having read so many positive feedback with respect to it, was such a starkly shallow experience for me, I am left wondering if I was simply in a totally unreceptive mood. I really don't think so. I was truly looking forward to the film, and a wonderfully positive experience. Did I expect too much? Was I too lax in caution? I don't think so. I had high expectation, granted, yet, by now, I am also aware that some forced caution is generally warranted. In this case, however, because my appreciation of the movie was so lukewarm, I doubt that, even had my expectations been unrealistically high, there would've been much difference in my eventual opinion with respect to the movie. It, just about on all levels, did not work for me. And, having read the extremely sparse negative reviews about the movie, and having felt anger and pity for these "unimaginative" souls who presumably couldn't appreciate creativity and fantasy and all the other qualities that most others had touted about this film as having, I didn't think that I would be, or wanted to be, one of the ones writing the negative reviews. Unfortunately, I can't write a fawning one. And, because I feel like I had far more invested in this film than most certainly most others, I felt like I had to write a review. I would have preferred that it be laden with praise, but my disappointment will not allow it. Based on my recent experiences with Jackson's "The Fellowship" and "The Sorcerer's Stone," (I have read all 4 Potters, and love Rowling's work), I reluctantly have come to the conclusion that, unless crafted by a truly remarkable and heretofore nonexistent collaboration, with much love and extraordinary competence, the results of the transference of a great work of fantasy from novel to film will most likely fail to rival the worlds that a reader would have created in his/her mind. To date, it seems that no science fiction/fantasy filmmakers have as successfully created wholly new and fantastical worlds as Lucas has done with his "Star Wars" movies. And even these are far from perfect.