Good - but far from perfect.

Rating: Null/10 (29 August 2003)

Problem with LOTR films is that they are always going to be compared to the books and peoples imaginations - and those of us with better imaginations than others often think of cooler things they'd rather have seen in the movie than others, or shown in different ways.
Getting away from that what you have isn't worth a film. It's a slice of a slice of a slice of a greater whole that was never going to be perfectly encapsulated into 12 movies - let alone 3 and let alone 3 with sum total of 3 years planning taking place prior to making the first film and then a continuous sequence of production. That doesn't lend kindly to perfection by any stretch of the imagination - and it shows. Because it's only a slice if you watch it and haven't got the background to fill in the gaps then all you have is a mediocre story, mediocre emotional value and very little that you can actually get your teeth into. You never get any kind of attachment to the characters - Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are getting on my nerves already and I was banking on Jackson straying completely from the book and bumping those two off - meanwhile Frodo and Sam look destined to lead a clandestine homosexual arrangement, because that's what it is - a big boys book of camping in woods and fending off mystical beasties.
Maybe if you watch all 3 films end to end it'd make sense - but right now the first film stands alone as an excellent piece of work, almost worthy of Tolkiens words whilst the second film goes back on the principle of 'enlightenment' and filling in background gaps by throwing everything in quickly and with little or no care for the people who haven't read the book. It sooooooo desperately needed a voice over, a few more historical flashbacks, a little more time introducing and attention paid to rather important characters such as Boromirs brother etc.
Anyway. CGI scenery is 'good' so long as you ignore the glaring wobbly bits (such as the Big Gate scene closing on the ranks of filed evil men) dodgy editing and inability (Still!) to get shadows and depth right. Sometimes matte paintings are the way to go if you can't realistically do it using a computer. I know that doesn't allow for big panning motions across mighty castles on hilltops etc but quite frankly I don't care much for this scenic extravaganza, I'd rather them cut the wasteful 15 or so minutes of watching people run, or horses slowly ride etc and have some background info - or at least give us a voice over with some pointers in the meantime. CGI creatures are on the whole well done, but again look like plastecine (or is plastacine?). Gollum stands apart in this respect as he is actually surprisingly well done. However, the artists could have done with actually "looking" at the effects the lighting in the scene had on the actors. Too often you'd see Sam or Frodo with their face half in shadow, then Gollum sticking out like a sore thumb because his 'shadow' doesn't come from any source within the scene.
Oh - and with all this CGI going on, nobody thought of fixing Legolas eyes. If we're going to see them so often in the film as he stares off into the middle distance and makes some profoundly obvious statement - then the least they can do is make them the same colour throughout.
Despite all this - it ranks as probably the greatest Sword+Fantasy type film. Unfortunately considering it's only up against B-Movie Conan and the hit'n'miss Legend and the lacklustre Dungeons&Dragons this isn't much to brag about. However, it does go an awful long way towards making Sword+Fantasy movies respectable. Hopefully someone will now be brave enough to take on the far more movie friendly "Dragonlance Chronicles" (Dragons of Autumn Twilight, Winter Night, Spring Dawning etc) and do them proper justice.
It's an 8. But only because I have an odd taste in movies admittedly, which would put Spaceballs as a 10. I apologise in advance for this travesty of judgement.