Boring? Trite? Cheesy?...Give me a break!

Rating: 10/10 (14 January 2002)

I am amazed at the comments of those who disliked this film. Comparing this to The Royal Tenenbaums is like comparing Hamlet to Hello Dolly! Cheesy special effects? War of the Worlds has cheesy special effects by our standards. Star Wars has cheesy special effects. Even Return of the Jedi with its shimmering machines against a matte background is cheesy. LOTR is not. If anything I applaud the ingenuity and creativity of Peter Jackson by not going for the obvious in depicting the hobbits, but for choosing to do it with camera angles instead. The movements are natural.
The story isn't literary? Tolkien has never been highly regarded in literary circles? I'm sorry, but I am not sure what literary circles some people run around in, but there is a reason why the few books that Tolkien wrote endure. His creativity in dealing with universal themes of good and evil, temptation and salvation, and bravery and cowardice have created a new mythology. His writing speaks to the ages...not to a decade.
The acting is superb considering the constraints. True, there is not a great deal of time for character development. I was one of those who was wondering about Legolas. Regardless, characters are clear and believable. Ian McKellen IS Gandalf. Elijah Wood is an excellent Frodo. It is always great to see Ian Holm and Christopher Lee's Saruman was excellent and displayed the depth so often overlooked in the many horror roles of his career. I was most impressed, though,by Sean Astin's Samwise 'Sam' Gamgee. He was both humorous and sensitive as the faithful hobbit whose main duty is to stick near to Frodo. He is Frodo's conscious as well as a voice of reason.
LOTR is not the best movie I have ever seen. It is possibly the best of its type, and this is where I would like to preach to my fellow reviewers. Too often we "Academize" our opinions and forget that each film should be taken separately on its own merits. Comedies shouldn't be lumped together with tragedies any more than a musical with a suicide. Once everything has been accounted for then start the comparisons. The Royal Tenebaums may be a wonderful movie, but is it the best ever of its kind? There will undoubtedly be comparisons made between LOTR and Star Wars, but is it fair to compare one movie's technology with another's when they are separated by twenty years of advancement? Look at things in a more realistic light.
For those who feel Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring is too long I apologize. I grew up in the day of triple features for a buck. I still feel cheated when I pay seven dollars for one movie. And for someone who usually makes a trip to the restroom after 90 minutes, I never felt the urge to leave my seat. My suggestion: don't drink before the movie.
For those who feel that Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring is boring may I suggest that you probably don't really appreciate fantasy to begin with. That's all right, but in the future you may find yourself less bored if you avoid those movies.
Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring is an excellent movie. It has my tentative vote for best of the year because I haven't seen the other possible nominees, but it is a work that will endure, and I can't wait for The Two Towers.