A pooch of the highest (lowest?) order.

Rating: 1/10 (5 January 2003)

Personally I found this movie to be a major disappointment.
Having read the book(s) several times since the mid-sixties, I have a thorough knowledge of the plot and a profound fondness for the texture of the story. I resisted unreasonable expectations going in, and was prepared for what I thought would be, at worst, a visual treat and some interpretative entertainment.
What I saw, however, was dour, over-pensive characters with little or no inherent charm, Pippin and Merry tossed in merely for bumbling comic relief, unconnected and confusing plot development (had I not been so familiar with the story I would have been completely unaware of what was going on in the story), and alterations to the storyline that were insipid and done merely to provide larger roles for the actors (the Arwen/Liv Tyler synthetic heroics pop immediately to mind).
As if the baffling plot development isn't bad enough, the role of Saruman in the story is greatly misrepresented, texture building subplot roles such as Bombadill and Butterbur were simply removed, and what were the Sacksville Bagginses (so critical to the book plot in the end) doing in this movie if they only got one (rather bewildering) reference. I could go on for hours about missing characterizations but suffice to say the difference between book and movie in this arena is horrific, and in point of fact, fatal.
Certainly the 'graphics' were nice, but so what. Amazing graphic hacking and hewing of monsters in a mountainous setting is a dime a dozen these days. Big deal.
And, Hugo Weaving as Elrond was ridiculous. All due respects to Mr. Weaving, but all I could hear Elrond saying in any of his scenes was 'Well, Mr. Anderson, one of these lives has a future and the other does not.' Respects to his powerful portrayal as agent Smith.
The charm and depth of Tolkien's story is completely missing in this film. Frodo, for example, whines and whimpers through every scene, acting continually pained, as if he had a thorn in his foot the entire time. He has no real inner character or strength, except in a few unfounded grandiose speeches during which he seemingly pulls some nerve out of thin air and proclaims himself equal to whatever task is currently at hand, after first whimpering in the background for a good deal of time with sad puppy-dog eyes and furrowed brow.
I would guess that the direction of this film was based on the assumption that members of the audience had read the book(s) and were familiar with the story line (how else could anyone follow the jerky plot presentation). If that is indeed the case, why were there so many drastic deviations from the original story line? Did screenwriter Frances Walsh or director Peter Jackson actually believes themselves better at telling this tale than Tolkien? The difference in medium is simply not a good enough explanation for me, and I rank this convoluted, expensive quagmire of one-dimensional characters and uninspired storytelling right up there with other titanic screen dogs, like Armageddon and Independence Day.
Painfully, there are 2 more Lord of the Rings episodes to come.