Faithfully Flawless

Rating: 10/10 (20 December 2003)

What can I say about Peter Jackson? After the respectfully good, but somewhat 'alternative' accomplishments of Braindead and People under the Stairs, the man has turned his attention to one of the most fiercely supported pieces of literature EVER. And he has delivered more than anyone could ever have expected, here's why.
Books are not films, and vice-versa, by this I mean that I cannot understand people who can compare, say, LA confidential the novel to the film, they are both huge accomplishments in their respective fields, which gets more respect? The movie, obviously, the written word is nowadays neglected and the silver screen is bolstered by millions of £s or $s depending on where you are reading this, as a result there can be enormous liberties taken with translations from one context to another. In the case of LOTR, this would have been fatal, because of this it has been contentious to make a film of these books due to the fierce critique that director/producer might receive but kudos to Jackson for taking this burden in the style of Frodo himself and casting it into the molten fires of mount cinema.
The first 2 films were great, but I was almost nervous going in to see this movie. The previous month I had fought against the odds to get a ticket for the first showing to the Matrix Revolutions, only to be shot down by ambiguity and an ending so clichéd there was literally cheese oozing out of the cinema when I left. I spent the hour before LOTR opened its doors nervously pacing and talking with friends about the possible implications this movie could have it made a mistake like the Wachowski's opus did. Thank f**k it didn't! Jackson showed all of us how Book-Film translations SHOULD, nay, MUST be done, this was the finest telling of Tolkien's private epic there could ever be, Tolkien himself could not match the drama and suspense created by Jackson during this film.
(Spoilers, Watch it) As the film came on and the familiar title screen showed it's face, I was wondering what would be shown first, maybe a flooded Isengard?, or maybe a falling Osgiliath, or maybe, like the book, the promise of Minas Tirith, these all came but not after Jackson had waved his own Movie-Making wand of genius over the story. The film began with a fantastic Soliloquy featuring Andy Serkis telling the tragic tale of Gollum/Smeagol and how he came to be, this was originally in the book 'The Hobbit' but it's inclusion here is so relevant to the ensuing story and the theme that the 'Quest will claim Frodo's Life' that it serves to make the film more accessible to the viewer than the warbled and slightly erratic story telling of Tolkien himself, again, Jackson makes a contentious decision that comes off so well, I immediately forgot my nervousness prior and began to embark on the most involving and absorbing 3 hours of any movie I have ever seen.
Jackson does make several omission to the story but I believe they are shrewdly chosen to up the pace and effectively make the film 'Better', the exclusion of the 'Scouring of the Shire' means Jackson has more time to tie up the loose ends of the story and we can effectively forget the whole Saruman situation. This has been criticized but, having read the book before just hurling random criticism at Jackson I believe the whole scene is too indulgent and strenuous on screen-time to warrant a film outing.
This is beyond all my hopes, the finest example of a concluding chapter to any film I have ever seen, I would urge anyone, anywhere to watch it and experience it. Better than the book and better than the dream.