One that is flawed, falls short of the greatness of the novel, but none the less quite good.

Rating: 10/10 (27 December 2001)

Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings' is indeed not J R R Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings'. I went into the theatre a few hours after having set down the literary masterpiece that is LOTR:FOTR. I have yet to finish the following volumes. In the case of the film, it is hard for me to admit I was disappointed. I am not saying the film was appalling however, if one compares it to the novel, it comes nowhere near the brilliant world of Tolkien.
My first concern was a sense of 'realism'. I read the novel feeling and learning and eventually knowing the world. There was political conflict, racial differences, class systems, and vast and deep culture. Lord of the Rings was simply a disguised comment on our very own society. Those condemning a 'good v. evil' plot and saying that we should concern ourselves with fighting the 'real evil' in the world fail to recognize that the story is simply taking us from reality and putting us into a façade of what we know we are living, all it has is different names, different landscapes, and different creatures. It seems this is a lot to ask for from a film, yet this is the single most important thing that must be accomplished, a sense of 'Realism' Tolkien proved he could do it in a novel. Jackson failed to translate this.
Another important aspect of a Film's success is creating a sense of Time. The duration of events in the novel LOTR:FOTR spans almost a year (from what I recall) The film seems to play out the sequences within a matter of days. There is no sense of journey, no sense of development, by the end of the film we don't really care that the fellowship is broken (the fact that something like "we have failed, the fellowship is broken" is an actual piece of dialogue is another matter) because to a general audience these faces don't know each other. Of course one would argue against my claim of time being important by saying that Jackson was limited, but I would just say even with limitations, one must establish a pace. Jackson's translation was too fast in pace all that he needed to do is show wear and tear, the slow demise of food, the change of season, Tolkien used these in his novel, weather, clothing, and food, and a sense of time was created. Even if wearing is implied is enough to slow the pace of the film. Rather then inserting and unnecessary scene between Arwen and Aragorn, add something that would aid the simple STRUCTURE of the film, which then aids the plot itself. The journey of the story is as important if not more important then the action and mounting climax itself. The Novel explores the human' condition (with time!) the film explores New Zealand, and as a result failed to allow character development and ultimately restricts the film to a shallow rendition of Tolkien's and surely Jackson's intention. Rather then cramming Jackson should have attempted to slow the pace down.

Relationships are seemingly non-existent and sadly this is a result of pace and action. Limitations of course will ultimately become the excuse, yet some things cannot be excused. Relationships are vital, and the lack there of makes it difficult to feel for the characters, and secondly makes it difficult to imagine a continuing development in an established relationship. Legolas and Gimli. No, they do not only become buddies, they allow us (as a metaphor) to see political and racial tolerance, the change in attitude between races, which leads to a newly founded allegiance. That is the strength that Tolkien was trying to celebrate, not that of a sword, bow and an axe. Rather then promoting their physical attributes, Jackson could have at least included something deeper that would be of use. Again, the excuse is that of limitations.
The acting was quite well done. I did gain a sense of the characters surfaces indeed, Again screen time was limited and thus names like Cate Blancett were wasted in misinterpreted scenes (Galadriel is not a cold witch) The actors looked their part yet hadn't had enough dialogue to completely play their part save Gandalf.
Direction, Peter Jackson's vision was wonderful, again limitations brings the film down. Cinematography was quite impressive, visual effects were stunning. The script was true to Tolkien dialogue yet there was not enough.

The Novel was the Book of the Century; I've read that the film is the film of the century. If that were the case, the book being so acclaimed and all, the film would have worked even if it toned down the minor action sequences, toned up the major and necessary action sequences, and finally it would have worked even if it included something OTHER then the action sequences. Yes they were just an excuse for making pretty' lights and monsters dance, and congratulations for the special effects, well done I've seen special effects carry a film before (Star Wars Ep1.) Thankfully Lord of the Rings has much MUCH more then just its special effects, and it's hard to say after all that, that it is decent film. It just lacks a greater sense of realism, journey, growth and humanism that made the Novel so great.

I offer this collection of comments after my first viewing of the film, I only hope my second viewing will all me to see more. People must come to their senses and view this as NOT Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, but as a Film firstly, then as Jackson's Lord of the Rings.
Again it is merely AN adaptation, yet it is one that would only make the Global Village squirm with satisfaction, Tolkien might have been impressed with the look, perhaps the feel. But ultimately it misses something, then again, what film doesn't.
8/10 (might seem a contradiction, but like I said, this is not a bad movie, simply one that is flawed and falls short of the greatness that is the book.)