THIS FILM BELONGS NOWHERE NEAR THE TOP 10 MOVIES OF ALL TIME, AND NEITHER DOES THE SEQUEAL

Rating: 5/10 (20 July 2003)

After reading my opening sentence, I'm sure there is a large offended group of people so let me clarify. I enjoyed the movie. It was fun to watch, good entertainment and decent action. However it is lacking in a few key areas. As I list them, I consider the two movies as one so keep that in mind.
Most importantly for me, very few of the characters show any depth. The guy that plays Alec Trevlyn in GoldenEye (I forget his characters name and the name of the actor but I'm sure you all know who i'm talking about) was one of the few who did exercise multiple levels of character and demonstrated internal conflict. Deep down he really wanted the ring and the associated power, but he over came this and ended up dying nobely for the survival of Frodo and the success of the destruction of the ring. Golem projected a similar struggle, but at this point we (the movie goers and not the book readers) are unsure of weather he does succede in snuffing his desire. All the other members of the fellowship had their personalities shaped early on and their actions are becoming painfully predictable; espicially Frodo.
Acting is often regarded as "brilliant" or "stunning" by the members of the cast. But as mentioned above, the hobbits, elves, men, wizards and so forth are not multilayerd. "Superficial" isn't the right word, but it's the first to come to mind. Honestly, I care much more about a character who is dealing with internal conflict as well as external. Undoubtedly, our "wee people of the Shire" face extreme conflict from other sources, but little from them selves. (The struggle with desperation over the ring could be labeled as "internal" but I got the impression the ring's power was too much for most beings. But feel free to place it where you like.)
Another common speaking point for LOTR fanatics is the cinema-tography. Aside from a few too many (although impressive arials backed by strong music) nothing comes directly to mind as good camera work, mainly because there is far too much computer generation. I understand that the effects are necessary for the credibilty of the film, but it loses cinematic appeal in the process becasue, as of yet, CG scenes are still quite evident.

There are parts of the film that are exceptionally strong. The story speaks for it self as one of the greatest adventures I'm aware of. But you all know as well as I, that the story does not make the movie. However, little of this credit can go to any one involed with the film becasue it is a very near and accurate account of the novels.
Maybe every thing I've written is wrong and out of line. Maybe I just did this because I'm bitter that these two movies keep other films out of the high ranks tey deserve. (ie. Memento, Dr. Strangelove, Pulp Fiction etc.)
Overall, 6/10