Valiant attempt to film the unfilmable. No spoilers.

Rating: 5/10 (4 January 2002)

It takes a brave person to attempt to direct such an epic as Lord of the rings , since many who cherish the book will point to any omission or alteration to Tolkiens masterwork as bordering on blasphemy. I have mixed feelings after seeing the movie, having read the book many times. I went to the screening with an open mind and of course realising that it is starkly impossible to accommodate all the detail and sequences from the book even spread over 3 separate films. I guess the problem is that with such an imaginative and descriptive book, each reader will visualise their own image of middle-earth and the sound,look and feel of the characters. This presents an immensely difficult job for any director to realise a version which will please all - simply not possible. I can say that many people at the screening were indeed "wowed" and "blown away" by the film. So perhaps , familiarity with the book is in this case a disadvantage. Ok so why mixed feelings ? On many levels the film is spectacularly successful - the sets ( in particular Bag End and Rivendell ) are superb. The computer graphics are top rate ( Sarumans tower Orthanc and the mines of Moria stand out ). The overall look of the film is terrific. It was also nice to have passages of dialogue lifted almost verbatim from the book. Generally the cast did a fine job. Christopher Lee is outstanding as Saruman and for my money stole the show. I think I would have preffered to have Sean Bean in the role of Aragorn/Strider since Aragorn is at first very menacing when initially encountered , and Sean is also capable of non-menacing acting as well. As Boromir he is still great. Viggo Mortnsen is great as Aragorn but to me the dynamic Sean Bean stole the screen. One thing I found wearisome was the seemingly never ending close ups on Elijah Wood ( not his fault ). Wood does a commendable job in a difficult role where he is expected to change from innocent carefree Frodo into world weary ring-bearer. For those familiar with the book the Icons such as Bilbo's Mithril coat he gives to Frodo , or the sword Narsil or the seeing stones etc will be easily recognisable but for those seeing only the film for the first time I suspect in places it may seem bewildering or these items may lose their significance. Again this is perhaps the problem .. how to do justice to it all. What to cut, what to leave in ? I cringed at the story alterations ( ommissions ok - alterations not ok ). A score out of 10 for having the guts to even attempt to film the book in the first place should be 10/10 so thanks Peter Jackson.
So how does it rate ? Perhaps like this : For those who have not read the book 8 out of 10. For those who have read the book 5 out of 10. Remembering that the book is split into 3 films ( I assume they follow basically the three books which comprise Lord of the Rings ) will explain the way the first film ended ( which seemed to puzzle some people ). Should you see it ? Yes ! One area where the film definately did score was broad appeal - enough drama and visuals for the buffs and plenty of action to keep the kids happy ( note: it is rather violent in places ). Go see it soon !