Against my better judgement, a 5/10

Rating: 1/10 (14 March 2002)

Possible spoilers...
I recognise the worst impulses in myself, in that I want to stamp my foot, shout "no, no, NO!" and give this turgid epic a petulant 1/10 -- if only to counterweight the inexplicable adulation it seems to have generated across IMDB.
But really, that reaction isn't fair to The Lord of the Rings.
It is visually spectacular. Then again, having visited the stunning New Zealand three times, it is no more or less stunning than the country itself. The attention to detail in the costuming, props and sets is painstaking. However, I had to commit to a "making-of" special to finally appreciate it as I had nodded off in the movie itself.
The casting is right on the money. It has to be -- because no character has any inherent depth or motivation within the film itself, just a handle, like "ethereal elf queen" or "bad wizard". In place of character and plot we have storybook cut-outs as flat and two-dimensional as a sheet of paper, spurred to action by portents of doom and gloom and a selection of apparently dangerous paths which derive their only tension from their ostentatious titles and the grandiose echo with which they are pronounced -- usually by Gandalf.
Who was Gandalf? Kindly wizard, foolish ditherer -- guy who fell in a hole? By the end of the movie I was none the wiser. I kind of got the Bilbo and Frodo thing, I even kind of got the whole Ring thing, but who was Sam in relation to Frodo, really, and when and why did Mary and Poppins show up? Sure I know what we were TOLD, but whatever happened to SHOW don't tell?
Who were that travelling band of... travellers? Yes, they all had different weapons and hair (and Legless had very lovely hair), but who they were and what they were about could have been scratched in toto on the inside of a finger ring: "Feckless Hobbit", "Blond spunk with crossbow", "short, growling dwarf", "Cate Blanchet", etc. It wasn't until Boromir (sp?) made his exit in what seemed a significant fashion that I decided to lean over to my trilogy-reading friend and finally ask what the hell his name was.
I did ply Tolkien fans for a few of the whys and wherefores that were missing from the movie, enough to realise that essential components of the characters interrelationships *were* defined in the novels. But nobody insisted when I bought my ticket that I needed to have done the requisite reading. A feature film should be self-contained. I have in fact read SOME Tolkien -- which explains why I haven't read any more. Even Tolkien fans of my acquaintance are divided on whether this is a worthy adaption or only a very visual interpretation devoid of much of its essential text.
To bring these books to the screen was undoubtedly a challenging task, but as of this writing I am still undecided as to whether "Fellowship" is a good adaption of a horrible book, or a horrible adaption of a good book, or just a horrible adaption of a horrible book.
All I know is that, as a fan of characterisation who hasn't read the trilogy on which this series is based, this movie failed on almost every level to reach me beyond a renewed appreciation for the beauty of New Zealand. I might even have liked Frodo or Sam or Legolas or Aragorn or Boromir if the director had shown me who the hell they were beyond people of different height all going in the same direction. I know many other people who haven't read the novels have managed to enjoy the film
anyway. I can only assume they place less importance than I on really caring what was actually supposed to be going on.
I think a movie needs more than good scenery, props and casting to earn Best Picture or Best Director kudos. It seems that puts me out of step with the majority.