Good job with difficult translation of book to film

Rating: 8/10 (27 December 2001)

This is from the Tolkien fanatic's perspective. I've read the trilogy at least a dozen times and know the story by heart. However, unlike other die-hard Tolkien fans, I'm not going to complain about the movie version cutting out several big scenes, eliminating characters, and basically taking every shortcut they can to keep the story moving. They had to do it. The movie is long as it is and there are too many characters. Because of this, I'll say straight off that Fellowship is not going to be a super blockbuster. The much simpler (and far inferior) Titanic is safe with its record.
Cutting out some characters was essential. Giving Arwen the added role of Glorfindel was absolutely necessary. Did we really need another elf? How could they possibly have gotten Liv Tyler to do the movie when her role in the first book would have been trivial.
I also agree with most of the scene cuts. Did we really have to see Tom Bombadil? Do I mind that Farmer Maggot is reduced to a passing reference? Does it really matter that Frodo leaves immediately rather than waiting around in the Shire for many weeks first? These are all wisely chosen scene cuts to shorten the movie. Even cutting out the Barrow Downs is OK, although it does seems funny when Strider suddenly throws weapons at the hobbits out of nowhere.
And this is the main flaw of the movie. Because there is so much story to tell, the movie seems choppy in places. The editing is weak. Plus, they've made an attempt to put the story in chronological order, meaning that they had to bring some scenes from later books into the already long Fellowship. It doesn't quite fly. I think they really needed four movies to perfectly render the three books. Fellowship, for example, would have been far better off ending after the escape from the mines.
Worse, they've botched a few important scenes. We see Aragorn giving Frodo his tacit permission to leave the group before he sneaks out. This has got to be incomprehensible to fan and novice alike. Since we later have a scene with Aragorn restraining Legolas from giving chase to Frodo and Sam, the earlier added scene is unnecessary. They should have just left it with Strider refusing the ring to contrast him with Boromir.
Another big botch is at the Prancing Pony. We never hear about the letter that Gandalf gave Butterball. So how in the world do we understand why the hobbits eventually learn to trust Strider?
OK, we've gotten the picky bits out of the way, on to the positive side. The art direction is absolutely fabulous, quite possibly the best I've ever seen in a movie. Every location -- Shire, Isenguard, Rivendell, even the difficult Mines of Moria, are wonderfully brought to life. An amazing achievement! Plus they've handled the special effects well, including the tricky task of making the hobbits look small.
As for the acting, McKellen's Gandalf is getting all the advance press, but really, almost everyone in the cast does an admirable job. It's hard for the actors to not be overshadowed by the effects, and they are to some extent, but most of them get the essence of their characters to come out.
While this is not a perfect Fellowship, it is almost certainly about the best Fellowship they could have made today, and that far exceeds my expectations. The first book of the Rings trilogy is the hardest to translate. Two Towers, with it's three part parallel story lines, will be much more cinematic. Return of the King will be easier to render since it can get by without so much introductory material and will be easier to condense. With that in mind, I'm very much looking forward to the next two films, which are already in the can and coming out one per year.