Subject: Review: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001)

From: David N. Butterworth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:29:19 -0000

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
A film review by David N. Butterworth
Copyright 2002 David N. Butterworth

**1/2 (out of ****)

	There's an amusing moment an hour or two into "The Lord of the Rings: The
Fellowship of the Ring," Peter Jackson's ambitious first of three part
adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic trilogy about hairy-footed hobbits,
glowing gold rings, and (generally speaking) good versus evil.  Having
stumbled into a "it's not a cave... it's a tomb!" riddled with corpses
shortly before his gallant band of followers do battle with a large, angry
squid, Gandalf the Grey (a well-cast Ian McKellen in a pointy hat) mentions
that perhaps they can pass unnoticed from thereon out.

	Fat chance.

	Up until that point (and, as it turns out, thereafter), the film has been
a very well made--and, at $270 million, a very expensive--tape loop.
Entrusted with the security of a mysterious ring, Frodo Baggins (Elijah
Wood, proving he can open his eyes wider than Harry Potter's Daniel
Radcliffe) is cavalier with the ring (tucking it into his loose fitting
tunic, carrying it in his hand, or wearing it about his neck like a
trinket), is hounded by the dark lords of Saruman (cowled demonic legions
on sweaty horses), yet escapes to tell the tale.  Rewind and repeat this,
once or twice thereafter.

	Now this is most probably Tolkien's doing and not Jackson's (the New
Zealander responsible for "Heavenly Creatures" and a handful of tasteless
horror flicks--how on earth did he land this assignment?), since Jackson
(like Potter's Chris Columbus before him) has promised to be true to the
book(s).  But it does make the experience of watching "The Lord of the
Rings Part 1," the whole entire three-hour experience of watching "The Lord
of the Rings Part 1" take note, a somewhat repetitive one.

	For repetition reigns supreme in "The Fellowship of the Ring."  In the
first hour alone there are so many close-ups of the ring itself that if
Jackson had edited out half of them we'd be down to a two-hour movie, easy.
 Then there are the battle scenes: epic seeming at first, but soon kinda
same-y.  And among Middle-earth's many dangers are some familiar-looking
monsters: the afore-mentioned tentacled beastie (from "20,000 Leagues Under
the Sea"?), a Shrek-like troll (not unlike the Shrek-like troll in "Harry
Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone") from the Mines of Moria, and Khazad-dum's
generic horned demon that the fellowshippers let Gandalf deal with, and
then inexplicably forget to offer him assistance!

	If this all makes it sound like I didn't enjoy the film I did.  It's
extremely entertaining and, unlike many past and present effects-laden
extravaganzas, the filmmakers have spent equal amounts of non-CGI time
developing their characters, from the 111-year-old Bilbo Baggins (a
digitally-reduced Ian Holm), who first discovers the ring, to the wizardly
Gandalf himself, plus a smattering of elves, dwarves, and warriors (among
them Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean, and John
Rhys-Davies).  The dark stuff, on and around the Mountain of Doom, is
especially well done (except for the part when Gandalf and Christopher
Lee's Saruman the White wave sticks at one another).  I just wish the story
elements didn't keep recycling themselves with such regularity, and that
Frodo wouldn't handle the titular gold band so recklessly so much of the time.

	Handsomely mounted, "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is
nevertheless a faithful and lavish production that, despite its frequent
forays into repetitiveness, fans of J.R.R. Tolkien--and others--should
thoroughly enjoy.

--
David N. Butterworth
[email-masked]

Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf"
online at http://members.dca.net/dnb

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 30784
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 278865
X-RT-TitleID: 1108476
X-RT-SourceID: 878
X-RT-AuthorID: 1393
X-RT-RatingText: 2.5/4