Change Your Image
![](https://cdn.statically.io/img/images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
MyrtleT
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Great Fantasy, but only a Fantasy of Greatness
Don't get me wrong. I liked this film a lot, but was disappointed at what was slashed from the books, as well as what was changed. First of all: they shouldn't have cut the barrow-wight. It would have been a great opportunity to show yet another monster of Middle-Earth. And they could have found a way out besides through Tom Bombadil, who was rightfully cut out. They should not have cut out the incident concerning blindfolding in Lorien. It's critical to the understanding of the relationships between the races. But the biggest problem I had between book and film was where they introduced Gollum's pursuit of the Fellowship. In the books, Gollum picks up their trail beginning in Lorien, after coming out of Moria. Having him begin within Moria introduces far too many plot holes: how did he get INTO the mines? If they knew exactly where Gollum was, why didn't they apprehend or kill him? How did Gollum avoid the Orcs, Trolls, and other dangers? And how does he eventually leave Moria? Start his pursuit in Lorien, and problems are solved. Enough with the negative stuff. What is in the movie is VERY good. The locations and visuals are mind-blowing, and the performances by the actors is astounding. For some reason, the most striking performance to me was Christopher Lee as Saruman, followed shortly by Ian McKellen as Gandalf. Peter Jackson does a very good job at capturing a portion of the epic scope and grandeur of Tolkien's trilogy, and can foreseeably net himself an Oscar for the effort. However, while this film could easily be the film of year for 2001 (I haven't seen much better this year), it is probably not one of, and certainly not THE greatest of all time, as today's glimpse at the Top 250 suggests.