Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (novel), Frances Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, Liv Tyler, Viggo Mortensen

It’s been a long, long time coming, but finally, the live action version of J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic novel The Lord Of The Rings has arrived. So was it worth the wait? In a word… yes. In a few words… every damn minute of it. I am happy to say that the film lives up to all of the hype, and I am surprised to find that most of the critics would agree with that statement. Many literary critics would dismiss Tolkien’s work as “fluff”, and I had expected the film to be regarded in the same light. Thus far, however, I have heard nothing but positive comments.

After seeing the movie, I now understand why this is. There is simply no way to find fault in a production this ambitious; a cinematic endeavour that attempts tells a story so grand, and succeeds. The movie is overwhelming from start to finish, and at its conclusion, you are reminded that it is merely the first of a three part story. The movie’s flaws seem so miniscule in the broader perspective that they are hardly worth mentioning.

Granted, the book that the movie is based on is quite overwhelming in itself. In writing the Lord Of The Rings, English professor J.R.R. Tolkien created an elaborate fantasy world called Middle-Earth, in which to base his story. It is easy to see how Tolkien’s hardcore fans can become utterly consumed by all the detail and beauty of Middle-Earth, even moreso now that it is brought to life on a screen in front of us. It’s a wonderful place inhabited by many magical creatures, each with their own physical characteristics, language, and detailed race history, myths and legends.

The film is about 3 hours long, but in my mind this isn’t without good reason. Tolkien fans will be pleased to find that there are no shortcuts taken in telling the story. By this I do not mean that it is translated word for word as it was written in the book, because there were a number of small omissions and alterations made to the story for various reasons (for example, the love story between Arwen and Aragorn is written in, and Tom Bombadil’s chapters were left out). I simply mean, that the events in the book were not significantly modified for the purposes of turning this into a more easily digestable mainstream flick.

Now, some may argue that shortcuts were necessary.The movie is long, yes, and I suspect that it will feel a little too long to many of those who have not read the book. (Not unlike my own experience of another recent movie about a certain young sorcerer.) From an outsider’s point of view, the events in the Fellowship Of The Ring may seem arbitrary and more extended than necessary. One must keep in mind, however, that there are still 2 more movies to come, and they are needed in order to put this first one in the proper context.

I cannot dispute the fact that both the book and the movie are more than a little self-indulgent, but they are such wonderfully imaginative works that it should not be held against them.It seems that both Tolkien and Jackson were too attached to the material to cut down on the length of these works. Fortunately, they are not the only ones attached to it, and I imagine most Tolkien fans will be willing to accept any drawn out scenes simply because of the fact that each additional moment is equally as compelling as the one that came before it.

The casting is almost perfect. There are a number of talented, big name actors involved, and they are mostly quite fitting. However, the recognition of some of these actors does at times draw you out of the story. For instance, Hugo Weaving reminded me more of Agent Smith from The Matrix than he did Elrond, and Sean Astin just looked like… well, a chubby version of the dude from The Goonies. But Elijah Wood is perfect as Frodo, Ian McKellan is an ideal Gandalf, and Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan bring to life the characters of Pippin and Merry in a way that I could never have envisioned. All of the actors deliver their lines with great care and conviction. Even Liv Tyler manages to portray a nobility and gracefulness befitting of her character, the beautiful elf-princess Arwen.

The scenery, the costumes, and the special effects are all outstanding. Middle-Earth comes to life before our very eyes, in a way that most of us never thought possible. The various races and creatures look believable and have only subtle physical characteristics that set them apart. The hobbits look very much as I personally thought they should, and with the use of some visual trickery, they are made to look much shorter than their human and elven companions. I did, however, think they could stand to be a little chubbier; after all, we hear them constantly asking about meal times, but they do not really look like folks who eat two breakfasts and two dinners every day.

The orcs and other monsters look grotesque and horrid… in other words, they are fantastic! They look exactly like the types of gross things you might see in some of director Peter Jackson’s earlier low-budget horror flicks, and this is no coincidence as Jackson brought his own special effects crew on board to do prosthetics and make-up for the film.

Jackson may seem an odd choice to direct a blockbuster of this magnitude, but his cult filmmaking background brings some very relevant expertise to the movie. The Lord Of The Rings contains many elements of horror and suspense, and definitely has a gruesome aspect to it. The act of chopping up orcs and goblins should be a messy affair, after all, and Jackson pulls no punches here. However, he is also careful not to emphasize or glorify the gore, as you would in a horror movie. The action scenes are often violent, executed quickly and efficiently in the style of such films as Gladiator. In this way, nothing is ever in front of your eyes long enough for it to look fake.

Also, likely due to his low budget roots, Jackson is not overly reliant on computer graphics. There is still an overwhelming amount of computer generated visual effects in the Lord Of The Rings, but Jackson seems to instinctively know when it is best to use more “old-fashioned” special effect techniques. On the whole, the computer generated portions are much less conspicuous than the ones used in Star Wars Episode 1, and the movements of the computer generated creatures (such as the Cave Troll in the Mines of Moria) look more realistic than just about any I’ve seen before. If I were to issue one minor complaint regarding the effects, it might be that the image of Sauron that we see in the flashback scenes with Isildur has an uncanny resemblance to something you might see in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Somehow, it did not seem nearly evil enough. In fairness though, it is difficult to visualize a physical form for Sauron, since I don’t think he was ever really described by Tolkien in the books.

Peter Jackson was also the perfect man to direct the film because he is a huge fan of the Lord Of The Rings, and it shows. There is so much attention to detail in this film that it will make your head spin. Jackson also surprised me with the amount of artistic flair that he exhibited here. The lighting and the cinematography are just beautiful, even if he did go a little overboard with the coloured filters.

As you can probably tell by now, I am sold on this movie. The question is, did they manage to bridge the gap between the people who have read The Lord Of The Rings and the people who haven’t? The people who have read the book are probably already committed to see all three films (I know I am), but the non-readers need to be appropriately introduced to Tolkien’s work, and then subsequently hooked so that they will be interested in what happens next. Does the Fellowship Of The Ring succeed on that level? I think it does, but I do not believe that everyone who sees it will be won over.

Certainly there are plenty of people to whom this movie will not appeal in the least. If you think that mention of elves and dwarves and wizards and hobbits sounds goofy and childish, or if you have a hard time keeping a straight face when hearing an Old English/Shakespearean style of dialogue, or if you have no appreciation for the concepts of courage, romance and honour, then you may not be able to buy into the dramatic events that occur in this movie. And if you can’t take it seriously, then you will not be able to sit through 3 hours of it, much less want to come back for 6 more.

Not having read the book, however, is not reason enough to be intimidated by the film. In fact, this gives a certain advantage, as the non-reader will not have any preconceived ideas as to how each character should look and act. The large cast of characters may seem confusing (particularly with some similar sounding names as as Saruman and Sauron), and I know that some people may not have the patience to try to digest all the elaborate details of Middle-Earth and its history. However, the movie opens with a 10 minute prologue that nicely summarizes the history of the ring, which should be enough to help newcomers get their bearings. In general I think that (if one pays attention) the story itself is not hard to follow, and the important characters are given enough screen time for you to learn to distinguish between them. The stage has been perfecly set for what is to follow.

Seeing this film has cast aside any doubts I had about adapting the Lord Of The Rings trilogy for the big screen. The only uncertainty that remains in my mind is the matter of coming up with a worthy encore. This may prove to be a more difficult task than producing The Fellowship Of The Ring. All three movies were shot simultaneously, so this gives a strong indication that the same care and effort was put into the other two films as well. The problem, I think, is that the second and third parts to the Lord Of The Rings are not quite as interesting as the first. They do not give the same experience of mystery and suspense as the story unravels itself, and they are not so much focused on the characters as they are the events that happen to those characters. Yet, there are many characters that have larger roles to play still, and I anxiously await their moments in the spotlight.

The Fellowship Of The Ring brings to life Tolkien’s world in a way that is gripping, moving, and downright glorious. It aims high, and it hits the mark. The film does have flaws, and cheesy moments (glimpses of Peter Jackson’s roots shining through perhaps?), but when all is said and done, these are not the images that remain in my mind.

There are few films that can compare to something of this magnitude, and there is but one word I can think of to describe it: epic. Sure, people throw that word around all the time, but you will need to see the film to realize just how well it defines what the Lord Of The Rings is all about. It is the ultimate good versus evil story.

One of the film’s greatest accomplishments is the fact that it does not dumb down anything for the non-Tolkienites, and yet this is also what will prevent The Lord Of The Rings from becoming a pop culture phenomenon of Star Wars’ proportions. It will not, however, prevent it from getting respect. In all likelihood there will be a number of Oscars in store for this film, and although 2001 has been a pretty dismal year for movies, this should not stop The Fellowship Of The Ring from getting the praise it deserves. It is a masterpiece on many different levels, and I can’t recommend it highly enough. — Sean