Beautiful, compelling and rich with details

Rating: 9/10 (9 July 2002)

To all those who gave it less than 5 out of 10: you're either the most pretentious people or people with the driest imagination. I pity you for seeing little joy in beautiful story told, astounding visuals, awesome sound and effects, rich little details, the amount of love went into the work, the bond between the characters, or the film medium being used as a portal for another world -- the world of the imagination.
I've read book 1 of the series (i will save the others for after the series ends), the fellowship of the ring, and i appreciate the layers and details that went into the book. I like finding out more about the characters that the film may not have gone too much into due to the limit of time; if everything was kept, it would not be a manageable film, but more like a tv series, and would be much more boring. You have to realize that the film medium is different than the written world. The book is much slower than the film. There was no constant rush of adrenaline. The sense of danger is not as dense as it is in the film. Film embraces the senses, in particular, the visual one. Vision is known to have a great physical influence on the body's state. With the books, you make do with your imagination, which may or may not give as vivid a picture as what your eyes would give.

The film is tighter and to the point. It does not go off into little stories that are marginally related to the quest, such as the story of Tom Bombadil. The changes made in the film is most welcome so far; an example would be changes to the Arwen role. ***SPOILER***The scene in which she rode the horse that carried Frodo to Rivendell was most thrilling***END SPOILER***. This change is better than the book's original version, as the book is seriously in need of more variety than white blond boys. The choice may be somewhat political (the changes, i think, may not even be enough to turn the film into a politically correct film --> it needs not be, in my opinion), but it's also an artistic move. It does not take away from the film, but accentuates, reinterprets a character that was originally used as an ornament. Now that, my friends, is a true work of art, an "interpretation" and not "imitation" of the original works. However, the film does follow the book quite closely, so that you still recognize the events that happen in the book. In fact, a few lines are lifted straight from the book, which serve to satisfy fans of the works like me.
Having seen the film without reading the book ahead of time, i was on the edge of my seat the entire time. I loved everything about it, as it is very close to getting a perfect 10 from me. In my humble opinion though, its white-male centeredness may alienate quite a few people (though there really isn't a good reason why they should be, other than making the unrepresented people feeling a little bummed out because this wonderful Middle Earth does not have people who look like them). My chief complaint is its lack of true variety (if this was based on human characteristics) in a supposedly varied and complex world of Middle Earth (where everyone is white, be he is hobbit or elves or men). The other minor complaint is its cheesiness in a couple of scenes: ***MAJOR SPOILER- DO NOT READ IF YOU STILL HAVEN'T SEEN IT*** Gandalf's and Boromir's deaths. They are a little bit too dramatic for my taste.
In closing, this is quite an imaginative collaboration between Peter Jackson and the belated J.R. Tolkien. Tolkien, the creator of Middle Earth, imagined a complex world drawn from his own experience. Jackson interpreted it using the medium he knew best. Beautiful works from both. 9/10.