A groundbreaking achievement in the realm of fantasy.

Rating: 10/10 (31 May 2004)

I had heard of Tolkien's novel before the movie, but never bothered to read it, being nine years old. I got all three on DVD and watched one film per day. After that, I settled down to reading the book. Living in Pakistan, The Return of the King was out on DVD with stunning quality before the original had been released. Lucky me!
But the sequels are beside the point. The first Lord of the Rings installment blew me away. I felt a bit annoyed with Frodo's character, disliking his frailty and the many times he wanted to turn away from the quest and go back to the Shire. In spite of this, Elijah Wood pulls off what is required as well is anyone could. Ian McKellen as Gandalf was perfect, and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) was just as good. Mortensen, I thought, should also play Sirius in Harry Potter, but that cannot be. Some of the best roles are of the minor hobbits (not too minor), especially Pippin and Sam. Bilbo and Merry are nearly as good. The cutting between one location and another is seamless. The score and the landscape shots are breathtaking. The dialogue is of the same style as the books, but the olden speech doesn't seem misplaced, and that is an achievement.
The film is not perfect anyway. I don't really think they could have done it better. The Aragorn-Arwen romance takes too much of the plot, and is boring. Essentially nothing of it was in the books, although Tolkien did make it clear that it was there. But to extend it so much was a mistake.

More was to come for The Lord of the Rings trilogy. This is maybe the least of the films, but an awesome feat. Peter Jackson's editing is good; you can't fill all the book into a film. To do so would be a mistake. The live-action film is a medium for imagery, not facts and long talks of no real significance. I applaud the cast and assorted writers and directors for a great achievement.