Perfect adaptation of one of the greatest novels of all time? No. But it's very, very good.

Rating: 10/10 (15 December 2004)

"The Fellowship of the Ring" is a world or two better than "The Two Towers" or the "Return of the King" (we're talking books right now) because the latter two are mired in battle after battle over Middle Earth and follow several plot lines at once while the first never has to follow more than one path at a time and creates the incredible world in which the stories take place. It also includes a few appearances of Bilbo, who is Falstaffian in his old age in a number of ways (perhaps Tolkien had this in mind), including that despite very limited paper space, he is the most vibrant, charismatic character Tolkien paints. (He also, like Falstaff, would be recognized by the audience of an extremely popular earlier work, in this case, "The Hobbit"--in Falstaff's case, "Henry IV.")
Adapting this world to the screen presents a monumental challenge, and Peter Jackson is the last person I would have considered up to it (although he had done an incredible job with a thoughtful, intellectual film once before with "Heavenly Creatures"). He usually creates worlds that are overdone for comic effect and seems to care more about how much blood he can throw at the audience than characters (with the exception of the aforementioned "Heavenly Creatures"). I would have wanted someone with his type of special effects skills, but probably Robert Zemeckis or Steven Spielberg would have been my choice for the dramatic backgrounds those two can bring along with the effects. Still, Jackson does not fall on his face (yet). He makes some poor choices--putting too much focus on Arwen, completely removing Tom Bombadil (the only character who has anywhere near Bilbo's charisma), and excising the pre-Bree difficulties of the hobbits in favor of a chase scene, not establishing hobbits' love of genealogy (necessary for the scene in the Prancing Pony), and removing Saruman's change from Saruman the White to Saruman of Many Colors--but in all he is given the space to follow the most important story--Frodo's.
Despite the brilliance of Tolkien's work, his characters are not particularly deep. They're made to move the story along. (Aragorn is the one major exception--being as deep, conflicted, and moving a character as there is this side of Hamlet.) Thus, there wasn't much required from the actors, all of whom performed well with the exception of the talentless (and extraordinarily unattractive) Liv Tyler--who should simply never be given a job. In particular, Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn is perfect and Christopher Lee has exactly the right presence to pull off Saruman (I sorely missed his presence in the third installment). Ian McKellen's Oscar-nominated performance is mostly on-target, but seems to lack the vitality and edge that I always read in Gandalf. Elijah Wood is an excellent casting choice not because of any talent, but because those big blue eyes will create more sympathy than any writing and the audience MUST sympathize with Frodo. Ian Holm absolutely pulsates with energy in his marvelous performance as Bilbo Baggins, as I said the most charismatic of Tolkien's characters. It's difficult to believe that much energy could come out of a 70-year-old man. Sean Astin also shone, as one might expect, considering his performance with a similar character in "Rudy," as Samwise.
Jackson's direction is good, but fairly typical epic direction. The special effects and the size effects were nothing short of amazing, but the film otherwise looked like it could have been directed by anyone in Hollywood. I'm not saying it was bad; I just didn't see anything to crow about. Certainly nothing in this film can compare to what Jackson accomplished with "Heavenly Creatures."
In all, this is a surprisingly excellent adaptation of a brilliant novel. It stays truer to the novel than I expected, though the changes in Ralph Bakshi's cartoon version were much more sensible and intelligent, if you ask me; its performances are mostly at least as good as can be expected; and the effects are marvelous. The major letdowns are the excruciatingly long love scene of Aragorn and Arwen and the (as expected) pathetic performance of Liv Tyler.
As a note to all Tolkien fans, this film follows the novel surprisingly well and most of the cuts and changes aren't bad. It overemphasizes Arwen and excises the Barrow-wights (I don't have my books with me, so I'm just going to hope I spelled that right) and Tom Bombadil, but it's surprisingly close.
I consider Ralph Bakshi's cuts for his film more sensible (excising Arwen and having Legolas meet the hobbits on their way to Rivendell instead of Glorfindel, where this film has Arwen meeting them), but the live action makes a huge difference for me and sets this film on top as the best "Lord of the Rings" adaptation. But be very wary of the third film, which has some unforgivable deviations from Tolkien.