Despite significantly altering the book, The Lord of the Rings is an outstanding achievement, and will go down in history as one of cinema's milestones.

Rating: 10/10 (6 January 2002)

This is a terrific achievement. The Lord of the Rings presented one of the greatest challenges for cinematography, yet this production scales the dizzy heights with breath-taking effects. It is, essentially, one big adventure movie. In fact it feels rather like being inside a computer game! But it is none the worse for that - and assuredly resides as the pinnacle of all adventure movies yet made. It is a superb achievement. But there are some problems, at least for fans of the book...
The film deviates from the book far more substantially than some critics seem to realise. As someone who knows the book inside-out there was scarce a frame where I did not recognise a deviation. Of these, the most significant of all is the denuding of Aragorn of his mystical power. Indeed, Aragorn becomes a rather weak man, unaware of his destiny, and trying to deny his true fate. In the film the broken sword remains at Rivendell; whereas in the book he carries it with him and shows it to the hobbits at Bree. In the film it is Legolas who speaks of a shadow growing on him down the Great River; in the book this is Aragorn's role. In the film Aragorn appears to deny his calling at Rivendell; in the book he shows the Council the sword and declares his identity. In the film it is Arwen who rides out and rescues Frodo; in the book Aragorn carries him 2 days out from Rivendell, and then the frankly ludicrous figure of Glorfindel brings him in. I could go on with many such examples. This is an intriguing alteration, and I think I see what Peter Jackson has done. Essentially, he has given mystical power to the elves and the elves alone. 'Men' are earthly, mortal, very much like men today. This is fine for attempting to bring a sense of realism to an essentially fantasy world, but it does rather miss the point that Aragorn is a descendant of Numenor, and thus a man with a combination of the mortal and the mystical. That is what is supposed to mark the great kings of old.
Other alterations are slightly less problematic. I like the neat touch of giving Frodo the key to opening the gates of Moria (in the book it is Gandalf). Why is this neat? Well because, as we all should know, hobbits are good at riddles (that's how Bilbo got to keep the ring)! Saruman's role is much enhanced - but has to be because the book describes events retrospectively. The whole birthday party scene is altered considerably. Pippin and Merry suddenly become petty thieves. The flight from the Shire has Gandalf present at the outset - completely different from the book. The hobbits arrive at the Brandywine much sooner in the film than the book, and they intended that route all along. Merry and Pippin do not meet them in Farmer Maggot's field. The Old Forest and Tom Bombadil have disappeared entirely (because they have little or nothing to do with the plot, even though the former of these is a glorious piece of writing - arguably the best part of the book). Thankfully Jackson made no attempt to translate Tolkien's awful songs to the screen.
What are we to make of these alterations?
Well... as someone who loves the book, I applaud Peter Jackson. The HUGE mistake with the Harry Potter movie by contrast was the attempt at an exact translation of the book to the screen. The result was wooden and clumsy - and I don't care how many people have been to see it. Books and films are different genres, and MUST be treated as such. What works in a novel does not necessarily work on screen. I take my hat off to the production team for realising this, unlike that extremely disappointing Potter film.
The Lord of the Rings is an outstanding achievement, and will go down in history as one of cinema's milestones.