Brilliant screen adaptation of classic novel.

Rating: Null/10 (13 August 2003)

I was moved enough by my disagreement with Blake French's review to actually register for IMDB, Blake French attested: "The only thing worse than a bad movie is.....a three hour long bad movie that thinks it is good." I couldn't disagree more wholeheartedly, so here's my observations of Peter Jacksons first part of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
I was raised on Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings and been a fan of the three books ever since I could read. Fellowship does the impossible, it takes an already incredible story and makes it even better, while still holding true to the original. Peter Jackson shows rare genius in his selection and portrayal of the first book on film.
The problem with most novels when they're translated to screen is that many of the things that an author can do with the written word can't be done on screen and vice versa. Internalization and the thoughts of characters is very difficult to capture on screen. Plus authors frequently include extraneous material to 'set the mood' or 'atmosphere' Tolkien included many chapters of material that had nothing to do with the main story at all in order to give the world a genuine, uncontrived feeling.
With film, you can accomplish this atmosphere and mood by your lighting, and sets, and all the details the eye can see. For film, sets, costumes, props, & score ARE a crucial part of the plot because reproduce what takes an author hundreds of pages to describe and (when done well) seamlessly integrate it into the main plot to give the story the same uncontrived feeling. This production of Fellowship accomplishes that with ease. When you watch the movie casually you simply do not notice the background at all. You accept that Hobbits are good, simple country folk, that the elves are a graceful and elder race. That is the mark of excellent directing, and one of the first requirements for a plot that excels.
Because the film does all of that already, it can leave out parts of the book that try to set the atmosphere of the trilogy early on. Parts like Tom Bombadil & the Barrow Wights. The world already has a legitimacy about it. It already feels real. I would demand that any good plot give me the juicy bits right away, and Peter Jackson delivers, getting right to the point.
Third, a film adaptation must capture the essence of the plot without changing it. And I must say that it does it excellently. The film makes you care about each and every one of the characters. Each of them is exceptional in some way. And it does the impossible task of making you feel for their losses both great and small, both strong and weak.
Now, to rebutt some of Blake French's clueless, misguided remarks.
"Actually, it's quite humorous of what this movie makes us buy.... an old wizard man who escapes a towering prison by summoning an enormous bird to rescue him-at the last minute, of course. Where is this great and powerful bird when the character later falls to his doom in a deep, treacherous cave? "
In the movie, Gandalf whispers something to a moth, which flutters off. Shortly after that, the eagle shows up and rescues him from the top of Saruman's tower. The eagle is actually a perfect example of the movie making you believe the world, as a peripherial ally of Gandalf from some previous adventure.
As for why Gwaihir, Lord of the Eagles from the Misty Mountains does not show up inside the mines of Moria...well, they're inside a mountain mine! Plus Gandalf didn't know he was going to fall, and had no way of sending word to his old friend.
As for Blake French's disbelief about wizards...all I can say is that one should not judge another by their appearance alone. Gandalf and Saruman may appear to be weak old men, but looks are often deceptive. The movie does an excellent job of revealing this right at the beginning, when Gandalf frightens Bilbo.
This theme of appearances being deceptive runs throughout the entire trilogy both movie and books. Aragorn looks shifty and Boromir heroic initially, but each is quite different inside. Frodo seems the most unlikely individual to lead the quest, yet turns out to be the most capable (of bearing the burden)and most prepared to do whatever it takes. And those who wield magic, from Saruman to Gandalf to the Lady Galadriel are effectively shown to be much, much more powerful than their appearance would suggest. But even that power is limited, in some ways that we can see, and others that we cannot -- as befits the complexities, and mysteries of magic.
Fellowship moves deceptively fast. You feel the length of the journey yet the movie ends all too quickly. The characters trek across the world of Middle Earth with whirlwind speed, go through harrowing escape after harrowing escape. They laugh and cry, rejoice and mourn, and burn indelible images of heroic stands against absolute evil. All the ingredients for a truly memorable, epic movie.
The best way to tell if an adaptation works, is to ask someone who loves the books how the screenplay compares. It is a rare work that not only lives up to the original, but exceeds it. And Fellowship of the Ring surely does that.