Disappointing

Rating: 7/10 (20 December 2001)

So there I was, these last few days, getting myself ready for the new Lord of the Rings film. Read the book, watched the documentaries and gathered thoughts and opinions from industry types. I was almost ready to write a review before the film even started; all I needed to do was fill in the blanks. I could have talked about the flaws, the highs and the lows of the book, how Middle Earth came to be and why Tolkien only agreed to sell the movie rights to help educate his grandchildren.
And so, on opening night, I watched The Fellowship of the Ring. All my preparations were in vein. Sadly, the film just isn't good enough to talk about any problems with the book for the film has many problems of it's own. Peter Jackson's film is certainly an ambitious project, and one that will both amaze and disappoint in equal amounts throughout its 3-hour running time.
It is understandable that changes have had to be made to the film, many minor characters from the book have been dropped completely (Tom Bombadil) and some scenes have been cut surprisingly short (The Barrow-downs get about 2 seconds). The first book of The Fellowship, the journey from The Shire to Rivendell is told at breakneck speed. While the book made it clear that it was a long trek, the film made it seem more like a short stroll. Also the characters of Pippin (Eric Idle Jr.) and Merry (Dominic Monaghan), the token comedy duo of the film, are woefully 2D and more irritating than funny. Because of this, the film feels too rushed in its early stages, losing much of the depth of Middle Earth.
Peter Jackson and writer Frances Walsh agreeably wanted to make a coherent film while keeping much of the detail of Tolkien's world. Many subplots have been cutout, but strangely their conclusions remain. This means only those who have read the book will the spot any subplot at all and will most likely only pick-up on its shallow representation on film. Perhaps most obvious is the friendship between Sam and the starved pony, Bill. In the book Sam brings the pony back into good health after its poor beginnings in Bree before having to leave it behind when the path was no longer suitable. In the film, a pony appears from nowhere after Rivendell and soon disappears again (at the same point as the book). Sam still appears to be upset, but the audience is given no reason why and no reason to care.
To me at least, Fellowship of the Ring seems like the result of an unholy marriage between Tolkien's imagination and Hollywood intervention. In their need to make a coherent film, Jackson and his team have created something that feels more like a string of set pieces in a series of impressive backdrops than the sprawling epic it should be. The need to remind us that Mordor is evil after almost every scene with a quick flyby is irritating and the time wasted here would have been better spent expanding the characters or adding depth to the ground they stand on.
But that isn't to say the film is particularly bad. It is, at times, an amazing spectacle, showing off Jackson's talents admirably and the action scenes are occasionally exceptional. The acting too is impressive, with the veterans giving the best performances, especially Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf in an almost certain Oscar winning roll (whether there are better or not).
Perhaps it is because the book is so fresh in my mind, or because my expectations were so high, but this first part of Lord of the Rings is a bitter disappointment. The lack of depth and bastardization of Middle Earth is the films undoing, while the action and the majority of the characters are likeable enough to raise the film above the usual Hollywood yarn. It is hotter than Potter (itself a film with similar problems, but without the imagination) and a film that everyone can enjoy, but I'm left confused when seeing what lofty praise the film has been gaining recently.
7/10