It sure was hyped, but is it hyper ?

Rating: 8/10 (14 January 2002)

I first got wind of this film in 2000 and it got me really interested in the story. It got me so interested that I read all of the books (plus The Hobbit, of course) and I must say that I was rather pleased with the books, although I found that in The Fellowship of The Ring the Fellowship was too lucky and that The Return of the King was too elaborate. My favorite was without doubt The Two Towers. But having read the books, I was sure a couple of good films could be made, with or without the flaws of the books.

I saw The Fellowship of the Ring twice, actually. The First time on December 22nd and second time on January the 13th. The first time I went to see it, I must say I was really thrilled. I had seen numerous reviews (very many giving the film 2 thumbs up and very few giving it 2 thumbs down). At the time I saw the film for the first time it was No. 1 at the IMDB Top 250, with 9662 votes and a rating of 9,6. So it is definitely GREAT, right??? Well I tried to stay out of the hype, although I was quite excited. I read a number of reviews (only the ones giving the film 2 thumbs down) and here is some of the critique: too much is made of Elijah Woods blue eyes, the female cast has no character development, there is no ending and that sucks after sitting through 3 hours of film, the goblins and orcs looked like cheap horror creatures and so on and on and on. All I have to say about that is BLA, BLA, BLA. What a bunch of gibberish. Who cares about blue eyes?; How are characters (the female ones) that are in the picture for about 10 to 15 minutes supposed to have character development?; Have you read the book?, there is no real ending, there are 2 more pictures to come to complete the story. and Would you rather have the goblins looked like Babe, the Gallant pig??? Deliberately I concentrated on what might be bad (from the reviews) and what I myself thought would stink. The latter one was composed of one thing really, Elijah Wood. I'd seen him in Deep Impact, where he sucked and I must say I expected him to do likewise in this film. He did not though. He performed well, really well, capturing all that is Frodo Baggins, the struggle within, the dear and the excitement of the adventure.

The film itself has a number of really great scenes. My favourite parts are all of the battle/fight scenes, the whole introduction (until The Fellowship of the Ring pops up), the outro and almost all of the scenes with Arwen (Liv Tyler). The scenes with Liv Tyler were all great, really. I especially enjoyed it when she talked elfish. It gave the film so much more of that epic/fantasy glow. There were (of course) a bunch of other good touching scenes, but I cannot remember them all plus there would be too much to name. There were very few things to be said about bad character portraits, after my first view. Though overall I found that Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) and Peter Hugo Weaving (Elrond) were worst including that they were present in the worst scenes (the mirror scene and the counsel scene). But as I watched the film for the second time, I quite liked those scenes too. For Hugo Weaving it was, because I got the Matrix thing out of my head and for Cate Blanchett it was, realising what the scene was about when she became all shiny, blue and upset. A sign that my mind was not too focused on the story, during my first peek at this film. Note that that Ian McKellen (Gandalf) was (by far) the best character in the film.

I did not enjoy the film very much the first time I saw it, because) I was somehow not able to get into the story and the characters as is needed to fully enjoy a movie. I kept getting distracted, finding myself looking for things, wondering: What's next?; I wonder how they've done that and how it'll look!'. I was way too busy looking for the way Peter Jackson had pictured what I myself had once pictured in my brain. The second time I did that much less and I got into the story much better. Because of those problems' during my first view there will be two ratings in the end of this review, of which the second one will be more truthfully than the first one to the film than the first one.

Well you are probably wandering, is this the best film of 2001 or even the best film ever, since it is No. 1 at the IMDB top 250. I could not have said after seeing it once. Well my view after the first time of seeing it was NO, after the second time it was still No. But I have to admit that it is out there with the best ones of the year. A year in which there were many good films I must say. But overall I still feel Moulin Rouge! is the best one this year (despite the film being at No. 1 of the IMDB top 250 now (13 of January) with an almost unbelievable 9,2 from 33583 voters). It also is not the best film ever, because although it is very good, it is not excellent. Plus I feel that a film that tells not a whole story, can be the best film ever (in my opinion).

Despite having a bad day, the first time I saw this film, I was sure of one thing. Namely that this film will get a bunch of Oscars and Academy Award nominations. This is what I think it will get. Though I only hope for the Best supporting Actor nomination (I do not believe he will get it).

Oscars for: Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing; Best Sound; Best Art Direction-Set Decoration; Best Editing; Best Effects, Visual Effects and Best Music, Original Score

Nominations for: Best Cinematography; Best Picture; Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Ian McKellen); Best Director; Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published; Best Costume Design; Best Music, Song and Best Makeup

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them alland in the darkness bind them.

1st view: 7 out of 10

2nd view: 8,25 out of 10