Hobbits and Wizards and Elves, Oh my!

Rating: 10/10 (17 July 2003)

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING / Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan and Vigoo Mortensen / Rated PG-13 / ****
"Hobbits, wizards and the writer/director from lesbian hit Heavenly Creatures brings you an epic fantasy for many ages to come!". I'm sure you'll never see that tagline on televison, but that's basically who's working behind the camera in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring", the first leg of a three-part story adapted from the classic books by J.R.R. Tolkien. I read the books when I knew a movie was going to be made, directed by Peter Jackson (of Dead Alive and Frighteners fame). I did not, however, have any plans to the see the upcoming movies, because I knew in my heart that they would royally screw it up. I still regret to this day that these films have been made. Now that the films are made, reading is once again shunned by the general public. After seeing the 208-minute extended edition of this first movie, my opinion really did not change at all.
Peter Jackson, however, does not disappoint. The film is a loud, boisterious and ambitious fantasy of epic scale, probably doing a lot to this genre than any other movie has. It is considerably darker and more menacing than gentle family man Tolkien ever dreamed of it being. This, perhaps, is probably to satisfy the action-hungry, ADD-induced teenagers who walk into this film expecting something of that caliber. This is a hit-and-miss premise, for me, and many other fans out there. The film opens not like the book, in the dreamy and warm Hobbiton, but in the telling of the great rings of power, ultimately leading up to the creation of the One Ring. The camera cuts to the famous battle of Dol Guldor, setting the tone of the next three-hours to come, but not before galloping through the fields and villages of the peaceful Shire.
The original novel's main scope on the magnificent world of Middle-Earth are the quiet and peace-loving Hobbits, completely absent during the second half of the movie. These chatty little creatures, about three feet tall, are the lonely people that want absolutely nothing to do with the outside world, and don't really give a crap about the men, wizards and elves, even though these mysterious beings fascinate them as bedtime stories and gossip. One hobbit stands alone from all the rest, and that is the grumpy yet gold-hearted Bilbo Baggins, played with true joy and delight by Sir Ian Holm. Bilbo lives with his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood), but the plucky hobbits have no real ambition for the outside (after Bilbo seeing some adventures of his own). The wizard Gandalf, played by Ian McKellan (that looks nothing like ol' Ian), however, sees a heavy shadow living inside the weary-looking Bilbo.
The reason for this once-happy hobbit becoming bitter and mournful is the growing pain of the One Ring. Yes, after the great battle in the beginning, the Ring was taken from the Dark Lord Sauron, surviving in the hands of the corrupted Isildur and the slimy creature Gollum, who constantly stares aimlessly at the Ring in his dark, gloomy cave deep under the Misty Mountains. After finding the Ring, Bilbo is slowly walking in the steps of Isildur, keeping the Ring, having it corrupting him which may lead him to his death. Gandalf explains to the hobbit that Frodo is meant to have it, and gives it to him. However, Gandalf has something else in mind: The Dark Lord's minions are closing in on the quiet Shire, and are ready to do anything to get the Ring back to their master. Frodo, enlisting the help of his faithful friend Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) travel across the world, making for the distant kingdom of Mordor, to Mount Doom, the only place the Ring can be destroyed. He is not alone, though, getting the help from a fellowship of eight, including men, an elf, a dwarf and fellow hobbits.
After watching the extended "Fellowship of the Ring" just recently, I must side with one of my favorite critics, Roger Ebert, on his intelligent and truthful opinion: There are not enough hobbits in the film. Tolkien wrote about little people overcoming the obstacles that even the big people could not handle many years ago. This, for me, does not create too much of a problem, just a minor quimble. I'd honestly say that the life of hobbits in the Shire are much more interesting than the big-scale battles occuping the latter part of the film. One interesting element in the book is Sam's feelings about the outside world, particularly the elves. This is not entirely cut out, but Jackson spends more time on epic camera movements than this fascinating fact. Aragorn, played by the rugged Viggo Mortensen, is more of the screen presence than any of the hobbits turn out to be. The relationship between Frodo and Sam, however, is here and in full throttle, but I don't think it often appears more than the beautiful New Zealand scenery.
Supporting characters, such as John Rhys-Davies' Gimli the Dwarf and newcomer Orlando Bloom's Legolas the Elf, are more action heroes than puppets, which I believe is an improvement. In the novels, they are great warriors, aiding the fellowship particularly in Moria and in Amon Hen, the film's major action sequences. They really do not have much to say, in contrast to their skillful use of axes and arrows. The deepest character is obviously Boromir, played by Sean Bean (006 from Goldeneye). He is this Age's Isildur, as the thought of the Ring begins to grow in his mind like a black cloud of smog. Boromir is tempted to steal it away from Frodo, simply because of his stature compared to a low class hobbit and that it was given to him. This is what makes Boromir truly human, and the deepest character in the movie, which will ultimately lead him to a dark fate. That element in the movie shows how everyone (especially men) can be corrupted by the Ring, and that Boromir is no different, no matter what he thinks of himself.
Yes, yes, the New Zealand landscapes. Wonderful. When the movie is in it's stale moments (the hefty dialogue scenes in the exposition, particularly), the film is one breathtaking experience visually. While the movie does stray away from the hobbits and more into action, the action is damn spectaculuar. The only films I can say will surpass the action sequences in this film is "The Two Towers" and the upcoming "The Return of the King", parts two and three. "The Fellowship of the Ring" is a huge epic undertaking, filled with sharp and ambitious action scenes crafted with the latest and skillful digital effects. "Harry Potter" did include some slick CGI effects, but the use of them in "Lord of the Rings" are probably the best I've seen since "The Matrix" and "The Phantom Menace". Heck, it's probably the best-looking movie I have ever seen. The resemblance New Zealand and Middle-Earth is uncanny, even with one being fictional, the other in real life. But like "Harry Potter", "Fellowship of the Ring" does feature some moments of what I like to call jello moments, with CGI characters moving around like rag dolls or characters from a computer game.
The film won the Best Cinematography award at the 2002 Oscars, but with the beautiful techniques (including the lighting) in 2001's "Amelie", it's kind of hard for me to see why. The film, shot by cinematographer Andrew Lesnie, creates a beautiful tone for the movie, but on the whole, it all comes down to scope. "The Fellowship of the Ring" is more closely related to the camera swoops in "Titanic" than a traditional epic film like "Ben-Hur" and "Seven Samurai". There is very little similarity in terms of cinematography, however, between "Lord of the Rings" and "Seven Samurai". There probably more swooping shots on the sets and scenery than any other movie ever filmed. This, along with the great (great, but not perfect) lighting, adds to a collection of epic cinematography.
"The Fellowship of the Ring" is a large film, the extended edition clocking in at an epic 208 minutes, longer than the box office bofo "Titanic". I can honestly say that I never looked at my watch or my alarm clock to see how much was left. I'm even amazed that I could keep my eyes open, starting it at midnight and ending it at half past three in the morning. But I still remember everything I saw, with the help of a few glasses of Mountain Dew, the greatest waker-upper aside from coffee. Amazingly, I thought the three-and-a-half-hour edition was paced a lot better than the 30 minute edited theatrical edition. I just have to keep my eyes somewhat close to the screen. "The Fellowship of the Ring" had me more interested and zoomed through it's running time probably more than the 152-minute and fluffy "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". J.K Rowling's boy wizard is one of my all time favorite stories, but Jackson really knew more of this genre than Chris Columbus.
While character development was present in the theatrical cut of the movie, the extended edition gives us even more of it with additional scenes. One of the best added scenes is a moment in the Hobbiton inn/bar where we see a little more closer look at how hobbits enjoy themselves even with the dark forces stirring beyond their borders. It tells us that the little people care not for any danger, adventure or worries outside their world. They are almost like children, with the outside being the 'adult' world and theirs being a playplace: A place to eat, sleep, drink and have fun. Much like Hayao Miyazaki's "My Neighbor Totoro", the Shire is a world we should have, not the one we occupy. A world with no violence, no murder, no treachery. A good, clean, wholesome and delightful world. This is the movie's first source of escapism.
The soundtrack, composed by legendary Howard Shore, has it's moments sometimes with a great sense of speed and also some low, brooding tones to flesh out atmosphere in the more suspensful scenes. The battle sequences feature some nifty brass and bass, but there are also a few moments where some themes are brought up a little too often: Those violins playing slowly along with the conversation between Gandalf and Saruman in his own keep at Orthanc. Or even the urgent score in some of the few chase scenes. And of course, when Frodo broods over the Ring, strong but very still music playing throughout. I say it rightfully deserved the Oscar portraying nightmarish music and dark themes.
While I would not call this movie the be-all-end-all of fantasy films (Subtle fantasy I usually go for more), it certainly does take the genre to a whole other level. The classic books by Tolkien can never be touched which, for me, makes the films a little more disposable. Still, it is remarkably well made, and entertained me hella much. It has, I'd say, enou gh depth and enough development in the story to stand quite well on it's own, aside from fantastic books. It matters on how the viewier will react to the story by old Tolkien in this Jackson interpretation. I think a lot of people will love it, I loved it, but there are people who will never go see it in the first place, partially because of the fantasy genre. Too bad for them, as they are truly missing out on a great film.