A quality film that was a bit too "Hollywoodized"

Rating: 10/10 (21 January 2002)

To lay it out simply here are the pros and cons, IMHO:
Pros:
1) Peter Jackson has done a very good job of creating an entertaining film. Even when dealing with high expectations of fans of the novel who have been DYING to see it he has come through. Also translating a novel so rich and large into a film can be a difficult task so obviously he is not going to satisfy all fans of Tolkein's book.
2) A large part of the entertainment value was the beautifully shot New Zealand scenery (is it possible to make that look bad?) combined with extremely well designed sets and costumes. This film is about as close as one can get on film to making real life scenes look like a "fantasy land."
3) But some of this was clearly use of CGI, and I think that the use of this technology was maybe the best use I've seen of it to date in a movie. Many film makers seem to fall in love with this technology, not understanding when to use it and when not to. I thought Speilberg (who has commented on the overuse of CGI) in "A.I." made good use of it this summer, and Jackson and his crew also used it properly. One of the other problems of misusing is that some things just don't look REAL enough when they are CGI. I knew that some creatures and effects were clearly CGI, but it never appeared unrealistic enough to not enjoy it.
4) The acting was strong from many of the characters especially from the central ones, Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, and a surprisingly good Sean Austin.
5) The film really kicks in when the Fellowship is officially formed, and it leads to the best sequence, IMHO, the mines scene.
Cons:
1) This film had a lot of potential to be even better. One of the keys to its weakening was the overuse of the dramatic score combined with long drawn out scenes, to get the audience to react emotionally. Personally I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the audience when EVERY SINGLE TIME we are supposed to feel some kind of emotion sad, dramatic music combined with slow motion has to be used. I think near the end, especially, when a particularly emotional scene happens, the use of music and slow motion was excessively to the point of ruining it. And it's not that music and slow motion can not be used effectively, but again it is overuse, and timing that are key.
2) One of the reviews mentioned a "roller coaster" feeling, where sometimes it was slow and then BOOM the pace suddenly changed. Of course, this is not necessarily bad, but sometimes the flow of the film was not so great. However, in defense, some of this "slowness" was developing the characters, so that is understandable.
3) Some of the actor choices I feel were not so solid. There is just something about Liv Tyler, where I cannot take her seriously. I think she is just a poor actress. Also the choice of Hugo Weaving (of The Matrix fame) for the roll of Lord Elrond. He seemed to overact a bit, and did not command the kind of status that his character should have. There were also times, in general, that the dialogue was a bit overdone (like Kate Blanchett's lines), but I have not read the book, so I don't know how true to the novel it was.
Summary:
Overall this was a strong and entertaining film, that is worth your money time (and you need a bit of it, at nearly 3 hours). I did find it funny that some people I was in the theater with, based on their reactions, did not seem to realize that this was part 1 of a trilogy. I am definitely looking foward to the sequals.