Simply amazing --- and flawed.

Rating: 7/10 (9 June 2003)

SOME SPOILERS AS WELL
Before I delve into my opinion, here's a little background... I've never read any of Tolkien's books. Heck, when I first saw the preview for LOTR in the theatre, I remember thinking, "Well, that movie's gonna bomb, what the hell is that about?!" I didn't even know the book existed. And no, I'm not a moron. I'm a 22-year old college graduate who read all the mandatory books in advanced English in high school and so on. I didn't see the first 2 movies in the theatre, and over the past 2 years, have picked up on the story on Tolkien's vision and the scope of the films and knew I owed them and myself to try them as a movie buff.
That being said, I can not and will not compare them to the book(s) (Is it just 1 big book split into a trilogy, or 3 separate books?). I can only critique the 1st LOTR as a stand-alone movie.
I got to say, after watching the movie, seeing the extra documentaries on the accompanying DVD, reading many reviews and seeing what some of the hard core experts have to say on here, I can't see why this movie is rated The #4 Movie Of All-Time on this great website.
The scope of the film is phenomenal. I love the fact they filmed all 3 right in a row. The detail of the costumes, the sets, the actors -- the word amazing doens't do it enough justice.
But I don't know anything about these books, or other books Tolkien wrote so people know backgrounds and histories of people. I'm talking about watching The Fellowship of the Ring as a stand alone work of art, as it should be. Therefore, I believe it is a flawed movie, simple as that.

Consider me a case study becasue I knew NOTHING heading into the movie about the trilogy or the past stories of the characters. So, saying that again, I'll tell you what I got out of this movie.
1. Awe-inspiring detail/imagery/cinemetography. It would make George Lucas soil his shorts. No doubt he's working hard right now trying to raise the bar for his Star Wars Episode 3.
2. Flimsy characters. Again, before the die-hards flip out on me. I can only go with what's shown on the screen. And in 3 hours of what is basically an extended "chase-movie", I can sum up the main characters in quick phrases. Frodo; troubled Hobbit who bears a great burden. 2 other "token" Hobbits to add comedic breaks in the film. Viggo Mortenson's character had some depth because you could tell he was flawed (being a human) but his power/bravery/values etc showed. Then the other human = a caricature of how humans can go wrong (power-hungry). The Dwarf who's a stubborn fighter.

3. How can the writers expect anyone to feel any pull towards the "romantic" part of the movie (the 2 minutes with Liv Tyler and Viggo) when we see no back story, no nothing? They hold hands a minute and she says she wants to marry him and not live eternally, that's what we got to go on? I felt nothing there.
4. Gandolf was played awesomely. He deserved that Best Actor nod.

5. I'm not saying the movie is cliche'd. I know that it's a "trilogy" so I'm not complaining about the "lack" of an ending. But somethings are just too much. The movie is like an extended get-away. I was left thinking at the introduction of every setting, What are they going to dodge next? And Gandolf is hanging by a thread on the stone bridge... Earlier in the film we see him throwing a fellow Wizard scross the room... dude, just float up! Am I wrong? These people of Middle Earth have access to fireworks that would make any 4th of July celebration on your block look ridiculous, and the best weapons they can come up with are axes, swords and bow and arrows?

The people of Mordor have access to some kind of power which allowed the Original Bad Dude (sorry, I forgot his name) to create this all powerful "Ring to rule all others", am I right? What do they do? They make these Super-Orcs. Viggo was taking them down 3 at a time, and he's supposed to be the fallable human?!
6. The "bad guys" on the black horses can sense instantly when Frodo puts on the ring.. So in the 50 years Biffo or the 111-year-old Hobbit had it, he NEVER put it on? If they were so hell bent on getting it back, what took them so long once it was taken from Gollum?
Somebody else mentioned that they felt like a spectator of the events on screen, kind of disconnected, and I really agree. That may be because I never read the books, but it shouldn't be that way. The film should be able to stand on its own.
I know this post may bother some of the hardcore fans who grew up with the book and love the films. But it's how I feel and I think it's obvious. I may be missing the boat here. I know of people who just don't get Star Wars and I really enjoy those movies. Don't get me wrong, this is more than a movie - it's an achievement of film. I have the utmost respect for Tolkien's vision (as a child, I drew up maps and things, dreaming of unknown worlds, but this guy is amazing... inventing 14 languages?!) and the actors and P.Jackson's dedication.
But I just don't believe that this movie can contend for the title as one of the best movies of all-time, I'm sorry.