Sometimes I'll watch a movie that many people consider to be a masterpiece, but I'll find myself having a hard time getting into it. "Apocalypse Now" is a perfect example, as is "Gone with the Wind." Both are movies that are widely considered to be masterpieces, and I've watched both more than once, each time trying really hard to love them. Watching them, I can see the brilliance, and I can see why they're considered great, but ultimately, I don't enjoy them. I just sit there bored. Yes, I can respect the movies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to like them. Does that make any sense? I watch them, and I can see why so many people love them, but despite that, I'm not entertained.
Watching "The Fellowship of the Ring," the first part of a trilogy called "The Lord of the Rings," that's the feeling I got, but to a lesser degree. I don't think that the movie is as great as "Gone with the Wind" or "Apocalypse Now," but I wasn't as bored while watching it. Still, it's a similar feeling.
There's A LOT to like in this movie. Visually, it's amazing. The battle scenes, the costumes, the makeup, the special effects... all of it is incredible. Then there's the acting. Superb. I didn't expect the acting to be as good as it is. But when it comes to the story, it's just not the kinda thing I usually like.
I remember being in the fifth grade, and though I don't remember the occasion, we all got to watch a movie (on video). It was an animated film called "The Hobbit." I remember being bored the whole time. Years later, I found out that it was based on a book by J.R.R. Tolkien, and that it was a prequel to his famed "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I loved the title ("The Lord of the Rings" really is a cool title), so I went to the book store to buy the book. I flipped through it and quickly learned that it was a long, complex book about a quest. I don't like quest stories. I didn't then, and I don't now. Even back when I had Nintendo (the old one), I never got into the quest games like "The Legend of Zelda." It's not the kinda thing I'm interested in. So anyway, I didn't buy the book.
Then a few more years later, I heard that the trilogy was gonna be made into a movie, and that all three were gonna be made at the same time, with a budget of close to $300 million. I thought it was pretty cool, but I didn't think much of it... until I saw the trailer, especially the one that premiered during my favorite TV show, "Angel." Wow, it looked amazing! So once again, I went over to the bookstore to buy the books, but the same thing happened. I flipped through it, and I realized that it wasn't my thing. I still wanted to see the movie, though.
"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" truly is a great film. It's great, but I couldn't really get into it. I even found myself close to dozing off a couple of times. This is probably the toughest review I've ever had to write because of that. Is "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a great movie? Yes, it truly is. But did I like it? Well, I thought it was okay. It had a few awesome moments, but for the most part, I was bored. I even feel a little guilty about that, because I'm a geek and I'm proud of it. But what kinda geek wouldn't like this movie? I KNOW that I'm gonna get some hate mail over this review.
Not to change the subject, but ya know what I noticed while watching this movie? I noticed that the hobbits have the nastiest, most disgusting feet in the history of the universe. Seriously, they're gross. I mean, I've seen some disgusting feet in my lifetime. Even my own pair are less than decent. But those hobbits, wow, they've got feet of death. ICK!
Sorry. I just felt that I needed to mention that.
From what I've read, this movie is only fairly faithful to the novel. It strays quite a bit. Personally, I think that fans of the book will love the movie, and they'd probably consider it to be the new "Star Wars." However, extreme purists of Tolkien may object to the film. The movie is an epic action-adventure while the book is much closer to being a quest adventure. The film simply isn't a true visualization of Tolkien's novel. But it's close enough for me to not be very interested in the story.
"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (as well as the rest of the trilogy, the next of which comes out next December) was directed by Peter Jackson. Peter Jackson isn't known for directing big, huge, spectacular movies. Quite the opposite, actually, he's known for small movies with a dark edge and a quirky sense of humor. He's directed "The Frighteners," "Heavenly Creatures," "Dead Alive," "Meet the Feebles," and "Bad Taste." Some of you may not have heard of any of them, or maybe you've only heard of "The Frighteners," but "Bad Taste" and "Dead Alive" are the ones that gave him a cult following. "The Lord of the Rings" is very different from anything he's ever done, but I assure you, he does a fantastic job. What he's done is truly exceptional. Like with all of his movies, Peter Jackson was heavily involved in the writing process, and as usual, he got help from his wife and writing partner, Fran Walsh. Writing was also done by Philippa Boyens, and this is her feature film debut as a writer.
The cast is wonderful. All of the performances are really good. The thing is, many of them are in the movie for only a couple of minutes. I don't know anything about the books, so I don't know if they're gonna be featured in the next two movies, but I can tell you that some of the bigger names aren't in it for very long. The one who seems to be the main character is "Frodo Baggins," the hobbit played by Elijah Wood. I have nothing against Elijah Wood, but I'm not a huge fan either. He was everywhere as a child actor, and he's doing pretty good for himself now as a young adult. He was in "The Faculty" and "Deep Impact," and now he's in the trilogy. I was really impressed with his performance, though, and I now have a new respect for him as an actor. His accent is flawless, and he plays the role beautifully. He's absolutely excellent. Ian McKellen (starred in "Richard III," "Gods and Monsters," and "Apt Pupil"... he also played "Magneto" in "X-Men") plays "Gandalf," and he's great. He has all the majestic qualities required for the character, and he did a beautiful job. Sean Astin (he was the main "Goonie" in "The Goonies"... he also played the title character in "Rudy") plays "Sam," who seemed sorta like a kiss-ass sidekick to "Frodo." Sean Astin proved to me that he could act in "Rudy," and he's really good in this movie. Viggo Mortensen (he was in the "Psycho" remake, "A Perfect Murder," which is a remake of another Hichcock movie, "Dial 'M' for Murder," and "G.I. Jane") played the one who was probably my favorite character, "Aragorn." A true warrior, but very complex. I really like the character, and I like the way Mortensen played him. To me, he's very "Han Solo"-like, but the later brave warrior "Han," not the early rogue smuggler "Han." I also like Orlando Bloom (he was in "Wilde" and he'll be in "Black Hawk Down") as "Legolas Greenleaf." He's a smooth character, and he's awesome with that bow and arrow. John Rhys-Davies (best known as a sidekick to "Indiana Jones" in "Raiders of the Lost Ark," though he was also in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"... he played "Wilson Fisk," also known as "The Kingpin," in the TV-Movie, "The Trial of the Incredible Hulk") plays "Gimli," and he's really good, too.
There are quite a few significant people in the movie, such as Liv Tyler, the excellent Cate Blanchett, and Hugo Weaving, but they're hardly in the movie. Hopefully, we'll see more of them in the sequels.
I should mention that the music by Howard Shore is some of the best I've heard in years. Howard Shore is known for doing music for dark movies. He did the music for "Seven" and "The Silence of the Lambs," and when Tim Burton wasn't on speaking terms with his usual collaborator, Danny Elfman, while making "Ed Wood," it was Howard Shore who did the music (to date, "Ed Wood" is the only feature film by Tim Burton that doesn't have Danny Elfman music). The music for "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is tremendous. My favorite score of all-time is for "Bram Stoker's Dracula," the one released in 1992 directed by Francis Ford Coppola. The music was composed by Wojciech Kilar, and it's the best I've ever heard. The music in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" reminds me a lot of the music from "Bram Stoker's Dracula." No, it's not as good, but it's up there. I'm definitely gonna buy the soundtrack.
I should stress that even though I didn't like this movie as much as I wanted to, I wasn't bored the entire time. During some scenes, I was at the edge of my seat, totally into it. The action sequences were brilliantly executed, and I loved every moment of those scenes. It was all that stuff in between I had a problem with.
No, I don't love the movie, but I'll buy the DVD, and I plan on seeing it again. It's possible that after a second viewing, I'll suddenly consider the movie to be one of the best of all-time. But I don't think so. It's not the kinda story that I'm into, and there's not much I can do about that. Sorta like Japanese animation movies, no matter how much my asshole friends gang up and rip on me for hating "Princess Mononoke," it's simply not my thing. If I don't like broccoli, I'm not gonna start to like it just because people think I'm stupid for not liking it. I'm not a genius, but I don't think I'm THAT weak-minded. Still, I can't give "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a completely negative review. There are simply too many great things in it. I wasn't as entertained by the movie as I woulda liked to have been, though.
Scale of 1-10: 6