A true masterpiece, despite what Tolkien purists may say

Rating: 10/10 (24 May 2003)

Reading over some of the IMDb comments on this film, I am truly appalled by the number of people who rant and whine about the films deviations from the book. Film and literature are two different mediums, not to be confused, and very rarely are they entirely compatible. Tolkien's book, while brilliant, is not the 'perfect series' as I have heard it proclaimed, and cannot be expected, even by the most adamant of fans to be portrayed to utter perfection in the movie. Jackson's film is an utter masterpiece, giving the audience what they want, entertainment, emotion and raw pure spectacle. Almost all of the most brilliant films of all time are not entirely faithful to the book, including 'The Godfather', in which rather large sections were left out, 'Gone With The Wind', 'The Silence Of The Lambs', 'Doctor Zhivago', 'The Shawshank Redemption', 'A Clockwork Orange', 'The Bridge On The River Kwai', 'Apocalypse Now', 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest', 'Amadeus', 'Raging Bull' and 2001. And yes, I have read all these books so don't doubt me when I say it. Literary structure is different from the structure of movies. And any good screenwriter will tell you more often than not it is necessary to take liberties with a book in order to create the aesthetic of a good movie. So the ending was changed. It will be in the next one. So Arwen's appearance was an invention of Jackson's. It created a bridge in her character between the first and third films. Okay, I can understand the argument about Gimli being made into comic relief, that annoyed me too, but it did not mar my impression of the film in any way. In no way do the legitimate complaints of people annoy me, but when I hear such comments as 'Like Merry And Pippin would ever let Frodo go to the boats, he should have snuck to them through the shadowland like in the books', I get really bothered. Menial arguments such as this are the product of disgruntled Tolkien purists, many of whom I feel would not be satisfied even if the book followed the writer's vision perfectly. The smallest flaws are made into an ignominious nuisance by those who, even if those flaws were not there, would still complain about something else. I myself have read 'The Lord Of The Rings' about 6 or 7 times, and I agree it is a great book. Yet no book is so perfect that it should not be changed in any way. And I apologize to any Tolkien fans I am offending, but speaking from the view point of a huge literary afficionado I must say that 'The Lord Of The Rings' is not the greatest book ever written, nor is Tolkien the greatest writer. His mammoth fantasy epic is by no means the standard for literary style, nor for characterization or meaning. I shake my head when I hear 'The Lord Of The Rings' referred to as the quintessential novel. Despite being the greatest masterpieceo of fantasy ever written, it still does not measure up to Joyce's 'Ulysses', Dostoyevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov', or Proust's 'Remembrance Of Things Past'. I love Dostoyevsky, yet if a movie were made of 'The Brothers Karamazov', and 'The Grand Inquisitor', perhaps one of the most incredible sections in all literature were removed, I would not damn the director, and insult the film, for I realize the scene, though essential to the writer's purpose, is not essential to the story the film is trying to portray. If I may parody a line from 'Inherit The Wind', The Lord Of The Rings is a great book, but it is not the only book, and its brilliance as a film may not match its brilliance as a book (though in my opinion it does) but it cannot be insulted merely because it deviates from its source.