Not quite faithful to the book, but good nonetheless

Rating: Null/10 (25 December 2001)

The Fellowship of the Ring was marvelous, largely due to an intriguing story, along with wonderful character development. I'm referring to the novel. Although the movie was very good, it was woefully lacking in character development. There were scenes and characters omitted, which was clearly necessary in converting a 500-page book into a movie. This is perfectly understandable. However, I think there were a few major shortcomings.
First, and foremost, only two of the nine characters in the fellowship were adequately developed (Frodo and Gandalf). Gimli, Legolas, and Boromir, the representatives of the three major races, are barely even introduced; we are not even told where Gimli and Legolas are from. Merry and Pippin are mostly there for comic relief, and their friendship with Frodo is not explained at all. As for Sam, he has far too few lines for a character of his importance, and his relationship with Frodo is explained barely more than that of the other hobbits. Lastly, we have Aragorn/Strider. His character is pretty well developed, but I took exception to one omitted scene regarding Strider which I deemed fairly important in the book. The famous lines "All that glitters is not gold..." were OMITTED from the movie. In the novel, he recites this poem to the hobbits in Bree; the lines describe Aragorn and foreshadow events to come. I think removing this from the film eliminated Aragorn's aura of mysterious power and majesty.
My final quarrel with the film has to do with Saruman. Saruman is not even in the first book, except for a brief story concerning his betrayal and holding Gandalf as a prisoner in Orthanc. However, in the movie, he is made into a major character, and introduced from the beginning as a servant of Sauron. He uses the Palantir (not even mentioned until the 2nd book) to submit his power to Sauron. Saruman's mind and motives are sources of intrigue not just in the first book, but especially in the second and third. I don't see how this can possibly be recovered for the second and third films. His character in the movie is sterile and uninteresting.
Having aired these complaints, I must admit that I still found the film to be very good. The acting is incredible (Ian McKellen is wonderful as Gandalf). The scenery is extremely well done, particularly Rivendell and the mines of Moria. And for the most part, fortunately, the story is kept intact. Tolkien fans may be disappointed that Bombadil does not appear in the movie, but his is one of the side stories in the novel that does not really contribute to the main theme. Some parts of the book must be removed, otherwise the film would last twice as long. Bombadil is therefore not present, nor is Glorfindel, Bill Ferny, Ted Sandyman, Fatty Bolger, or Farmer Maggot, except for vague references. And I won't even comment on Arwen's augmented role, catering to modern audiences with notions of gender balance. However, I understand that these changes are necessary, and I do not think that they detract from the quality of the film. It's a fun movie from start to finish, but fans of the novel must be forewarned of a somewhat skewed translation.
Three stars from a Lord of the Rings fan.