only as disappointing as I expected it to be

Rating: 8/10 (5 January 2002)

The movie is never as good as the book, as everyone knows. While there may be a few exceptions (I might include Silence of the Lambs), Jackson's Fellowship of the Rings is not one of them. Don't get me wrong--it's a good movie, very entertaining, and it is strikingly loyal to the book. Jackson certainly didn't ruin the Lord of the Rings, but I still felt disappointed after viewing the film. I don't really have a problem with subplots that Jackson dropped or even the content that he added. But I do love Tolkien's trilogy, and over the years and the re-readings, I've found a great deal of pleasure in the details of the books, so it's little surprise that my disappointment in the movie can be traced to many equally small matters in the film. At the risk of seeming hopelessly picky, let me list a few of the devilish details that take a little of the edge off my appreciation of the movie:
1. The casting is excellent except for Elrond. Sadly, I couldn't get the Matrix villain out of my head when watching Elrond speak, and that wasn't a good thing.
2. While I'm on casting, let me mention the two elvish women, Galadriel and Arwen. Unfortunately, these two women are supposed to be ideals of beauty, far beyond the limits of human beings, which, of course, creates casting difficulties. I can appreciate this. Even so, I feel like there might have been better choices than Liv Tyler for Arwen and Cate Blanchet for Galadriel. I like Cate Blanchet quite a lot, but her face is too hard and cold to play Galadriel whose beauty tends to be described (in the book) in terms of daylight and sun. And I don't understand why both Tyler and Blanchet are forced to deliver most of their lines in lispy, far-away, dreamy, annoying whispers.
3. As with Galadriel herself, Lorien is much too dark, gray, cold, and Gothic. It looks like stone rather than wood. In the book, even though we see Lorien in winter, gold is the color that stands out in my mind's eye. The Lorien sequences were too short in the movie, too.
4. If I could cut one scene from the movie, it would be the wretched fight scene between Gandalf and Saruman. It's just plain silly to see these two venerable, powerful old men squeaking across the marble floors. And the absurdity comes to a climax when Saruman forces Gandalf to break-dance circles on the floor. It's laughable when it should be supremely unfunny. Certainly the scene could have been staged with more grace and gravity.
5. I understand that extensive character development is difficult in a movie, especially when even the book doesn't always offer much character refinement (Merry and Pippin, for instance, seem largely interchangeable until well into The Two Towers). Still, some points would have been easy to add, such as Gimli's changed attitude about Galadriel, a transformation which is set up by Gimli's grumbling comments about her before they meet. This could also provide the gateway for portraying the beginnings of Gimli's friendship with Legolas, one of the more touching and redemptive strains in the Lord of the Rings.
To be fair, there are countless brilliant details that make this movie enchanting. One that stands out is Jackson's use of the work of notable Tolkien illustrators, like Alan Lee. In several instances, movie settings seemed to bring Lee's painted illustrations to life, such as the images of Bag End, Rivendell, Orthanc, and the great halls of Moria. The movie's settings are stunning, the fight sequences are exciting, and most of the casting (esp. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Legolas, and Gimli) is superb. The movie is well worth seeing, but I can't help but note its "flaws," even while realizing that what are flaws to me are strengths or irrelevancies to others. See the movie, but if you like it even a little bit, be sure to read the books as well.