Number One?

Rating: 8/10 (7 January 2002)

Fellowship of the Ring was not a bad film. On the contrary, in my head I have my own criteria for a good film and it met all of them. Also, I have criteria for a good interpretation from a novel; it met most of those. However, it would take several extra credit points, and a perfect score on my novel-interpretation-o-meter to be a GREAT film, let alone THE GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME, as it has been voted by members of the IMDB.
First, the length; It didn't bother me. I'm not one of those who rules out a film because it's long.
Second, the interpretation; I love the book because I love hobbits. I like the idea of a journey this important being trusted to such simple creatures. And for the most part, this film gave me a hobbit fix, until toward the end, when the non-hobbit members of the fellowship were all the film seemed to care about. This didn't really take away from the storyline, but it took away from the emotion and hurt the theme a little. If you're not much of a reader, try this one for starters. It's pretty simple, although not Dr. Seuss, and it's got way deeper meaning than the film can hope for.
The direction; I really like the direction. The film is gorgeous, so much so that I, who am jaded by modern special effects, sometimes sat back in my chair and said "whoa." The shots that show all of Elron are breathtaking and the CGI used for the monsters in the cave gives me new hope in special effects. The creatures are more convincing, and what's more- cooler than any I've ever seen, And that's saying something.
All in all it's good. Just good. And I hope the people who proof read this will let me say that I wonder if the people at Warners distribution gave a little Christmas present to the IMDB webmaster that they hoped would help the site better interpret their ratings system if you get my drift.