The things wrong with this movie are overwhelmed by what is right about it.

Rating: 9/10 (21 December 2001)

I have never written a movie review before, but Peter Jackson's `Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' has inspired me to make a few comments. As of this writing I have seen the movie three times. Each time it keeps getting better. Things that were big problems for me on the first viewing didn't matter on the second and were irrelevant by the third. To summarize my review with one sentence, the things wrong with this movie are overwhelmed by what is right about it.
First, a point that should be obvious in this case needs restating: This movie is Peter Jackson's `Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring', not J.R.R. Tolkien's. This does not make the movie illegitimate, but it does mean that it will not be the same. Retelling a story has a long established history in both literature and film. How many versions of the Dracula story are there? How many times has Hamlet been altered and remade? How about the Arthurian legends? There are many examples where a storyteller has been inspired by an earlier work and sought to express their vision of the story with their own images and own words. Sometimes this retelling is done so well it is better than the original; other times it is done poorly and is forgettable; sometimes - as is the case in this movie - the retelling is both better and worse than the original, improving some sections at the cost of others.
The scenes of the journey from Hobbiton to Bree to Weathertop to Rivendel are rushed and condensed. Much of the drama and character development is lost in the movie. The introduction of Strider is so truncated that you cannot help but feel you missed something. These scenes are to the eyes and ears what junk food is to the mouth and stomach - tasty, but not terribly satisfying. Tolkien was much better.
The end of the movie is powerful, dramatic, and emotional. Frodo's fear is tangible, the corrupting influence of the ring is clear, the depth of Sam's loyalty and love brought the audience to tears. I could go on an on about it. Suffice it to say that every character had his moment; the ending was sad and uplifting at the same time; it was film-making at its finest. Tolkien's ending was good, but Jackson's was better.
I could go on with a laundry list of comparisons, but that would not evaluate the movie in any meaningful way. Instead, I shall talk about what was right and wrong about the movie in and of itself.
One thing that did really bother me was the music score. During the fight scenes the music ran the gauntlet between fine and inspired, but during the quite emotional scenes it was often annoying, intrusive, and stifling. The music when Boromir fights alone against the orcs is terrific. I do not, however, need or want music playing while Aragorn and Arwen stare into each other's eyes and whisper terms of endearments to tell me they are in love. That is what acting is for. The music often made the softly spoken word hard to hear, and most of the Elvish dialogue is spoken softly. From what little I could make out the language sounded like it was beautiful, but I can't be certain because of the overused background music. Now to be fair, I have talked with many people about this movie and so far I seem to be the only one who feels this way. Maybe it is just me, but with each viewing I kept wishing that the music would just stop while the characters were having deep and serious conversations. It would have been more dramatic; it would have been better.
The cast is excellent. Ian McKellen is perfect as Gandalf. His performance is Oscar worthy. Ian Holm as Bilbo is a joy to watch. Elijah Wood portrayal of Frodo is rich with emotion and complexities. Sean Bean's Boromir is a deep and troubled man, noble at heart, capable of both corruption and redemption. Orlando Bloom's Legolas is frighteningly deadly in battle and conveys the deep ties Elf's have to the world around them with his ever-alert sense for approaching danger. I could go on, but the gist is that the casting was inspired and performances more than merely memorable.
Some of the fight scenes could have been better filmed. At times the camera is so close to the whirling combatants and is jerking around so much that it is impossible to tell what is happening. It is much better when they pull back a little and either hold steady on a scene or sweep over the battlefield. At those times, the battles seem epic and powerful.
Some of the special effects are awe-inspiring. The Balrog simply must be seen to be appreciated. The cave troll is frightful and deadly. The Nazgul that Frodo sees when he puts on The Ring are terrifying and horrific. The watcher at the gate is powerful and huge. Other times the effects are more mundane and in certain moments the quick eye will see things that just don't look right. One image that struck me as just wrong was when the orcs come scaling down the pillars like spiders. It was unnecessary and inappropriate for these creatures. The birth of the Uruk-Hai is gross and more properly belongs in a Wes Craven horror flick. In the end, the mistakes (if mistakes' is the right word) are fleeting and - for the most part - irrelevant.
The sets are well done. Hobbiton is beautiful, Bag-End is the example of what a Hobbit hole should be. The ruins are old and scary. Rivendel is peaceful and elvish. Lothlorian is built around trees so large that they beggar the imagination. Moria is creepy, dark, and huge. Isengard starts out as beautiful and is transformed into the place of nightmares. Could they have been done better? Maybe, but give them their due. Each set is rich in detail, full of culture and heritage. Each feels like a place that has existed for thousands of years. Not a bad achievement.
I could go on and on and on. There are hundreds of different elements that have to come together to make any movie. Any one of those elements if done poorly can turn a potentially great movie into something merely mediocre. Is Peter Jackson's `Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' a great movie? It tries to be, and in many ways it succeeds. Its failures are not large, but they are enough to make one stop and think. I do believe this is the best fantasy movie ever made. Greatness is something I think time will have to decide.