Movies are modern myths. They present ideals and images that integrate themselves (depending upon their popularity) into the collective social unconscious. They speak to and engage us with sights, sounds, emotions, and thought. They are one of the supreme forms of communication and understanding possessed by modern humanity. And they have also recently begun a trend of returning to their roots in the primal wisdom and archetypal lore of mythology and fantasy.

Two of the latest examples of this emerging pattern are the films Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Both corresponding book series have sold millions of copies worldwide and have become dearly beloved tomes of imaginative fiction to multitudes across this planet (very recently and phenomenally in the case of the former). The movies themselves were also recently nominated for Academy Awards, with 3 nominations going to Harry Potter and 13 going to The Lord of the Rings (the most ever for a genre [e.g. science fiction, horror, fantasy] film).

Additionally, they have both done unexpectedly well at the domestic and foreign box offices, with Harry Potter currently number 2 (at $941.7 million) on the all-time worldwide box office charts and The Lord of the Rings currently number 8 (with $749.6 million) on those same charts. With such hubbub surrounding the two movies, it should come as no great surprise that I have an interest in them. And since I can only evaluate one film at a time, I have decided to devote my attention to the film which impressed and moved me most: The Lord of the Rings.

The story that establishes LotR (the common abbreviation for The Lord of the Rings) is simple enough (though admittedly convoluted): In the long-past history of Middle-Earth (the name for Tolkien's mythological realm), rings of power were forged by the (then-not-known-to-be-evil) Lord Sauron of Mordor and were distributed by his emissaries as tokens of friendship and allegiance to the free peoples of Middle-Earth.

Not the kind to give power freely, however, and not of the most pleasant disposition, Lord Sauron then forged a Ring of irrevocable coercive power –- the “One Ring to rule them all” –- through which his will alone would enslave the whole of the world. When Sauron's intentions became clear to the rulers and leaders of Middle-Earth, an allied army of the free peoples was sent to confront him. He was unwilling to accommodate their demands, and a bloody battle ensued. Only through great sacrifice were the allied armies able to bring down the Dark Lord, and grateful they were when he had been defeated.

After the carnage came to an end, the One Ring was then taken by Isildur (son of the slain human king) to be an heirloom for his progeny, ensuring the reign of his house forever. His plans were dashed, however, when he was soon after murdered by servants of the Enemy –- during which time the One Ring was lost in the tumult. The Ring has since faded from knowledge and passed into the annals of history. Or at least, until now...

And so begins the epic that is LotR. From this genesis comes a film that redefines the meaning of the word "epic." There is little I can say about the film that has not already been voiced by numberless pundits and film critics. But I shall nonetheless attempt to add my own personal take on the elements that compose this rich tapestry of modern cinematic myth.

To start, the acting across the board is superb, with especially exceptional performances from Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Ian Holm (Bilbo), and Sean Bean (Boromir). Another standout –- and my personal favorite –- is Sean Astin (of Rudy and The Goonies fame) as the benevolent Samwise Gamgee. Even though he has little material with which to work and as such is unable to plumb the depths of his character as thoroughly as might ideally have been the case otherwise, he nevertheless produces a character of immense humanity and endearing affection. His role will only grow larger with time (if Peter Jackson keeps to the text of the books) and will surely be a highlight of the next two films.

As far as the technical aspects of the film are concerned, it is certainly one of the most impressive achievements of 2001. (Only Moulin Rouge!, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, and Black Hawk Down come close to challenging it.) The costuming and set design are gorgeous, lushly illustrating the richness of Tolkien's mulilayered universe. The visual effects are of the highest order and put most other similar films to shame. (To elaborate: the cave troll from LotR is one of the most life-like CG [computer-generated] creations I have ever seen on the silver screen: the way it interacts with its environment allowed me to fully suspend disbelief, even knowing that such a creature never even touched the set.) The cinematography turned me off initially, what with all the odd camera angles and closeups of characters' faces. Nevertheless, it has grown on me with time (and further viewings) and now seems a revelation of innovative camera work. The score is transfixing. By turns it is riveting, poignant, inspiring, and eloquent –- without ever drawing attention to itself.

My main problems with LotR are trivial when taken in tandem with the film's achievements, but they are nevertheless worth mentioning since no cinematic production can achieve perfection. The first adverse element of the film that I would like to address is the lack of character development. Supporting characters are given little time to bond with the audience and even less time to bond with each other. Leading characters are better realized, but even they are not quite as fleshed-out as might have ideally been the case. Enemies tend to seem rather one-dimensional when the potential is there for them to be deeper and more meaningful than they are presented.

The other problem I have with LotR is that the latter half of the film is unnecessarily fight-heavy, without enough time being taken for "rest stops" between the major battles and confrontations. Not often enough do we hear of the characters' thoughts and feelings after major blows to the party, and we are occasionally left out in the cold as to what exactly they are experiencing. Also, it would have been nice to see more of Lothlorien (an elven forest city seen in the latter half of the film) and the gifts of Galadriel (an elven queen).

But these problems I have cited are nitpicks when taken in tandem with the redeeming elements of LotR. They really only marginally detracted from my enjoyment of it. A part of me also wonders if my having read the books beforehand could have been the source of my discontent with the lack of character development and the fast-driven pacing. If I had never read the books before seeing the film, I doubt I would have even noticed these issues. That resolved, here be my final thoughts: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a poignant tale of mythic proportions that awes, inspires, terrifies, and compels –- bringing to life one of the 20th century's most influential literary works with a splash of epic splendor and with a heart of sincere humanity. Make certain you don't miss the ride.


Recommended:
Yes

Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 9 - 12