Jackson not Tolkein - This won't bring the fantasy experience to the masses.

Rating: Null/10 (27 January 2002)

I had looked forward to this film for many months so I had high expectations going in. I had enjoyed the animated version in the past (sadly never finished by Ralph Bakshi though there are sequels available in the US) and felt confident that as with the animated film the basic story would be the same as the book but the look and acting would be improved to give a much clearer version of Tolkein's magnum opus.
Well the look of the film matched my expectations from the incredible opening battle to the lustrousness of the shire. The mine of Moria seemed oddly shaped for a mine however, but it did look spectacular all the same.
Unfortunately I feel Jackson attempted to stamp his own vision on the project. Obviously with an enormous book like LOTR then you have to chop a lot out, however this is let's remember the most popular book on the planet next to the Bible so I feel it's fair to say that Tolkein has written a pretty ng good yarn that doesn't require to be jazzed up.
The dialogue should have remained the same but reduced, instead it was changed and changed unnecessarily also the film had too many unnecessary action scenes and computer generated monsters. The characters of Frodo's two cousins changed from stalwart friends to amiable but stupid buffoons (one with an out of place Scottish accent).
Strider/Aragorn was changed from a tough and brooding haunted figure to an action hero. Who would be scared of the Ring Wraiths when Aragorn can easily kick the crap out of a bunch of them?
LOTR was about subtlety on every level. A deep and very long book which had a lustrous rich history. The first part of the book can be cut into it's basic plot (it was done before by Bakshi) but when it is changed for change's sake then it is reduced to yet another screenplay and ultimately The Fellowship of The Ring is yet another action movie.
This should have been the film that put fantasy on the map but instead I am sure many people must be wondering what all the fuss is about. The great thing about fantasy is the ability to lose yourself in another world, a realistic world in some ways but a different one from ours. This never happened in the film therefore it was a disappointment. Enjoyable enough on a certain level (but then again so was 'The Mummy') and yes it did look lovely but ultimately this just wasn't Tolkein.
PS: For a true fantasy film look at John Boorman's Excalibur which tells an often repeated tale in a beautiful manner but with proper respect for the source material.
joe-middleton.