Possibly the best movie I have ever seen

Rating: 10/10 (26 December 2001)

I estimate I have seen maybe two hundred movies in my life, the vast majority of which have made no impression whatsoever in my memory. This isn't to say I didn't enjoy seeing many of those movies; it's just that most films are insubstantial enough not to linger in my mind for long.
Only a half-dozen movies really stand out for me, and among these the Fellowship of the Ring makes a case for being the best (and I'm not a particular fan of the sword-and-sorcery fantasy genre). In my personal pantheon, the only movie that I could justify as being better overall than FotR is The Godfather (part I). While obviously very different films, both share several common threads. Both are reasonably faithful film adaptations of extremely popular novels. Both films' directors gambled on, and succeeded in, setting a richly detailed, wide-ranging, epic scale to their respective works. And in both films the protagonist (I can't call Michael Corleone a hero, but he certainly is the protagonist in the Godfather) tries very hard to shun the role fate and circumstance thrust upon him.
Okay, so what's so good about FotR? Well, like great wine it's got plenty of upfront appeal, but also tremendous depth of nuance and subtlety. The upfront appeal comes in what I would call the outer threat to our heroes. The enemies are foul and ugly, our heroes strong, and the battle scenes exhilirating, scary, and exciting. Here the storytelling is vastly superior to modern action-adventure staples, especially because we see that our heroes' victories are not without sacrifice. The nuance and subtlety come in what I would call the inner threat. Our heroes must not only battle the wraiths and orcs bent on killing them, but also the seduction of the Ring as it insinuates itself into their own weaknesses: lust for power, greed, and corruption. The movie makes the viewer wonder: who will resist and who will falter and betray? (If you've read the books you'll know, but that's besides the point). Oh, and I very much like the fact that the principal hero is a little guy who spends much of the movie looking like he's going to be sick from fear and trying to get other more powerful beings to relieve him of his burden. Ian McKellen's Gandalf is outstanding, as expected from him, but what takes this movie over the top is the superbly expressive face of Elijah Wood as Frodo.
What's bad about FotR? Well, I think it's too long. I won't argue with any of Peter Jackson's departures from the novel; I think they mostly work and make sense in telling the story as a movie rather than a book. However, after two viewings of this nearly three hour long film, I thought there were several scenes that could either be shortened significantly or eliminated altogether, resulting in a better film. There really are too many shots of Frodo opening his hand to reveal the Ring. Sometimes I think they made only two actual shots of this (one with clean hands, one with dirty) and just repeat them over and over again at intervals throughout the movie. The whole business with the crumbling staircase in Moria is a waste. It's really just a cheap-thrills roller-coaster ride which has no consequence to the story, but it takes up a lot of screen time. The Lady Galadriel speaks way too slowly (but boy, does she lay a real bummer on poor Frodo!). And the lovingly rendered shots of Sam underwater last so long that I wished he would just get it over with and drown. Really, I think this movie could have been better brought in at around two-and-a-half hours. So FotR is not a flawless move. It's just a really excellent one.