truly great in parts, but way too long

Rating: Null/10 (28 December 2001)

I will be the first to admit right up front that I am not exactly the greatest fan of all those medieval-type fantasy novels of which J. R.R. Tolkien's trilogy entitled `The Lord of the Rings' is the standard-bearing prototype - so I readily concede that there may be people out there far better equipped to do critical justice to this three-hour, multi-million dollar special effects extravaganza than I am. Yet even I can perceive that the makers of this first installment (subtitled `The Fellowship of the Ring,' after the first novel in the series) have done a fairly creditable job in transferring the author's vision to the big screen. In purely visual terms, the film is nothing short of a masterpiece. The superb art direction, set decoration, make up, and state-of-the-art special effects all combine to bring Tolkien's many fantasy worlds to eye-popping fruition on film. The film is, quite literally, a nonstop visual feast.

If only that were enough. The question is, though, how far can visuals alone take one  especially when that journey requires three hours of one's valuable time to arrive at the destination? For once one strips `The Lord of the Rings' of its dazzling look, is there anything left to engage the mind beyond what the eye can take in? There, I'm sorry to report, is where the movie begins to enter problematic and treacherous waters. Although the writers do a decent job at keeping the details of the story relatively coherent, those of us unfamiliar with the Tolkien canon may find ourselves having trouble coping with the profusion of bizarre character, place and clan names that come whooshing by us at lighting speed  names that the trilogy's devotees probably know better than those of their own kith and kin. Luckily, director Peter Jackson keeps the film packed to the rafters with high-energy action sequences (guaranteeing that 14 year-old boys will be enraptured from beginning to end)  although this over-reliance on pandemonium and hubbub seems to have the strangely paradoxical effect of actually slowing the film down in the long run. Nonstop action can become just as boring as nonstop inaction (a fact of physics Hollywood seems never to fully comprehend) and, in the case of this film, the lack of variation in the pacing results in a certain dramatic monotony taking hold after awhile. For the sad truth is that, despite all the beauty of background and setting that the film offers, `The Lord of the Rings' ultimately emerges as little more than a three-hour chase story  and, unless you are a Tolkien-devotee from way back, you may find yourself growing restless not long after the novelty of the film's look begins to wear off. Unfortunately, `Lord of the Rings' lacks the three crucial elements that any film presumptuous enough to demand three hours of our time needs: narrative complexity, thematic depth and character development, none of which this film provides in any appreciable quantity.
Perhaps the root of the problem lies in the fact that we can't help but feel that, in some ways, George Lucas beat these filmmakers to the punch twenty some odd years ago when he released a similar type work called `Star Wars.' The advantage Lucas had, however, is that he carried his mythmaking and empire-building into the hipper, postmodern realm of intergalactic space adventure. `The Lord of the Rings' can't help but feel a trifle retrogressive as a result. Even more important is the fact that, in Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, R2D2, Darth Vader etc., Lucas created well-delineated, finely developed characters that far outshine in personality and depth the assortment of hobbits, dwarves, wizards and monsters that adorn this film. Nowhere do we find, for instance, the kind of complex and amusing love-hate chemistry that defined the relationship between Han Solo and Princess Leia.
It is probably unfair to even make a comparison between `The Lord of the Rings' and `Star Wars' and I certainly concede that there is a tremendous amount to admire in this new film. It is quite obvious that `The Lord of the Rings' has been made by master craftsmen who clearly love the book they are adapting and are trying to make the best damn movie they can in its honor. I seriously doubt that any amount of carping by a holdout like myself will have the slightest effect on the enjoyment millions of Tolkien fans will derive from seeing their beloved work so beautifully wrought on screen. Still, someone has to be a minority, dissenting voice  if only to speak for all the non Middle Earthers out here who find that Hobbits, as befits their size, should probably be taken in relatively small doses.