A solid adaption worthy of praise

Rating: Null/10 (7 April 2002)

To be fair, I should state that I read Lord of the Rings before I was a teenager, so I knew what was going on before seeing the movie. I had not read the book recently, so didn't know the specifics, but knew the general plot line. Certainly, this prior affiliation afforded me the luxury of knowing the plot line, yet also not getting caught up in the differences between the book and the movie, which I discovered when I re-read the book after seeing the movie.
I was very happy and impressed the first time I saw the movie and felt it very accurate to the book, or accurate to the feeling of the book at least. Upon re-reading the book I found that there are significant differences between the movie and the book, but differences are unavoidable adapting a good sized book to a movie, even a three hour movie.
Is this movie complicated? Not really. Neither was Tolkien's work. At least at one level. The movie is true to the book in this respect: at the surface level there is a struggle between good and evil and a quest that the heroes of good embark on to overthrow the forces of evil, with the enemy creating numerous obstacles to foil the heroes' efforts. There is not a lot of nuance or subtlety. The story is the adventure of the characters trying to destroy The Ring. There aren't really any plot twists or characters struggling with some big moral dilemma or any betrayal. I don't think Tolkien meant for it to be complicated; I think he meant to create a good story. There is depth to the story in the relationships among the characters, but not so much in the plot line itself. If a quest of good versus evil where good triumphs in the end is not your style, don't bother watching.
My general feeling of the movie: the acting was great. I felt the emotion of the characters and that the emotions they felt were real. Evidence to back that claim up? Can there be evidence of convincing acting? I think one is either convinced or not, but I don't know what one can point to say, "That made me believe." because another could point to the same thing and say, "That didn't work for me." Casting was great and captured the spirit of the book. That's what it should do, right? Yes, I think a movie should be able to be enjoyed without ever reading the book, but the movie should be some sort of representation of the book, right? The scenery and settings were fantastic and fit the feeling of the book as well--and better than I imagined them myself at times, especially concerning Mordor and Isengard. Some of the CGI was great, some very obvious and ho-hum. Most importantly for me, at its best it enhanced the movie, at its worst was passable, but at no time prevented the movie from advancing the plot. Costuming was great on the whole, though I felt the orcs to be not so interesting. Sound was good, but I would have liked more usage of all 6.1 channels (could have been a theater thing, though). That said, let me address some specific complaints I've read in other reviews, and these very well may be "Spoilers", so if you don't want anything to be "spoiled", stop here.
The "no-ending" complaint. Tolkien wrote one book that publishers split into three for economical reasons. Jackson created a much better "ending" than the way FOTR "ends." Be glad it's not spot on accurate to the book. It would be much worse. Jackson should be applauded for manufacturing a reasonable stopping point one-third through a 1000+ page book. It's not really a trilogy. As one comment criticized, "it's basically a nine hour movie." Well, yes, it is. =)
One reviewer claims that the costumes were rags and the scenery wasn't anything special. The hobbits and Aragorn wore little more than rags. I guess that person didn't notice Sauron or all the men and elves in armor or dwarves or hobbits or orcs who weren't wearing rags. As for scenery. Well, if some of the more beautiful landscapes on this planet is nothing special, then there is no really special scenery on this planet. I feel, however, that huge expanses of mountains and forests and plains are very special.
As for hero invincibility. There is good reason that the heroes are so invincible, but it is true that the movie does not convey why this is. Basically, all the characters have some level of supernatural power. Boromir the least, and he does die. What the movie is not so clear about is that Gandalf and the elves are immortal, Dwarves generally live to 250, Hobbits over a 100, and Aragorn is about 90. These aren't normal people; there is good reason they kick so much butt, but the movie does not relate this well, unfortunately. Watching the movie I wondered the same thing, but in the book one expects the heroes to make mincemeat of the enemy. All in all, I don't mind criticism, I just get frustrated when people criticize yet cite no proof, and especially when I can look at someone's criticism and quote a line from the movie which debunks the criticism. Feel free to criticize, just back it up with evidence, otherwise you make yourself look like an unintelligent, baseless, mud-slinger.
Moral of the story: FOTR is not one of the best films of all time, but is very well done on the whole and does an admirable job of bringing to screan a beloved story. It has more ups than downs. It is a very different movie to those who know Tolkien's work as opposedto those who don't.
Above all, pay attention and have an open mind. And be fair in understanding that changes had to made from the original book.