What would I do with a Ring of Power? End movie musical chairs!

At this point, I'm beginning to believe in curses--both the gypsy kind and the kind you mutter when annoying bozos refuse to keep to their theater seats during a film. You see, I suffer from the first kind, which makes me prone to the second.

The last time we went to a movie, I had a run-in with the cast of "Deliverance" while in the popcorn line. They made the popcorn girl cry.

This time (at a different theater), there was a herd of 10-15 teenage personages who were, apparently, suffering from hemorrhoids. They sat. They stood. They sat. They stood. They walked about in a daze. They stood. They sat. They whispered. They stood.

Luckily, they were standing right in front of me. It's good I got such an up close and personal view of a dozen teenage heinies. Really.

Unluckily, the theater didn't see fit to provide me with a sharp stick for heinie prodding. Next time, I'm taking my own.

What all of this means is that my view of "The Fellowship of the Ring" was occasionally obstructed. What it doesn't tell you is that I was so pleased with the film, I couldn't stir from my seat long enough to go complain to management.


I first read The Lord of the Rings in high school. I found it intelligent and enjoyable, though I lacked the passion that so many of my friends had for the material. After rereading it last year, I found myself look forward to the film versions with a great deal of interest, but not the single-minded obsession that I'm wholly capable of.

The movie begins with a brief explanation of the history of the ring. I was grateful for this, having dragged my unsuspecting and non-fantasy-loving spouse along for the ride. In the book, Tolkien parcels out the information in dribs and drabs, which would make a movie fairly confusing for heretics, er, I mean people who haven't read the novel.

After this opener, the setting shifts to the bucolic Shire, where hobbits gambol about the countryside like humanoid lambs. They are cute, these hobbits, all curly headed and apple-cheeked and with a wide-eyed innocence that emphasizes how unlikely they are as heroes.

That emphasis is actually an improvement over the book. (Uh oh, who's the heretic now?) While reading, I sometimes lost track of just how small hobbits are, and just how naive they can be. But faced with Frodo's smooth-cheeked, blue-eyed boyishness, I never made that mistake during the film.

Four of these childlike hobbits will soon be wrenched from their idyllic Shire by world events they had been completely ignorant of. Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) is a young hobbit living with his uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm) in burrow-like comfort. But Bilbo was once an adventurous hobbit, and upon reaching his 111th birthday, he decides that he needs to revisit his old haunts, leaving Frodo with the house, Bag End, and all its furnishings, including a magic ring.

Frodo is not the fortunate hobbit he may seem, for the ring isn't a toy that simply makes the wearer disappear--it's an accursed instrument of evil Sauron and it must be destroyed in the Cracks of Doom! (Sorry, got a little carried away, there.) The wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) tells Frodo of the ring's true nature, and reveals how unsafe the Shire has suddenly become. Terrified by Gandalf's story, Frodo decides to leave the Shire immediately, accompanied only by Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) and, later, two other hobbits: Peregrine "Pippin" Took (Billy Boyd) and Meriadoc "Merry" Brandybuck (Dominic Monaghan).

During their flight, they meet up with Strider (Viggo Mortenson) who is apparently acquainted with Gandalf, with elf Legolas, dwarf Gimli, and warrior Boromir.

The "flight" part of the tale is handled fairly well. Pippin and Merry are sort of thrown into the mix without introduction, and this will happen again later with other characters, especially Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). Is this a problem for people who have read the books? Not at all. Is it a problem for people who haven't? Well, yes. The emotional center of The Fellowship of the Ring is in its character interactions, in Gimli learning to trust Legolas, in Boromir (Sean Bean) learning to forgive Frodo for not using the ring against Sauron. The film misses the opportunity to create the same tensions, though so much happens in the book it's no wonder they felt the need to trim out some details.

Each of these actors was cast well, especially the beautiful Orlando Bloom as Legolas. The casting is a huge strength of the film, with only one character, Arwen as played by Liv Tyler, seeming completely out of place. It doesn't help that Arwen's character is basically invented for the film, with no real grounding in the plot as a whole.

Viggo Mortenson's Strider is rugged, thoughtful, and attractive. Sean Bean's Boromir is tortured and tense. Pippin and Merry are appropriately silly, while Sam is worried and Frodo terrified.

The best casting of all is probably Ian McKellen's Gandalf. He brings a slightly amused sternness to the archetypal wizard's role. He is as believable when befuddled by the doors to the Moria mines as he is when confronting another wizard, Saruman (Christopher Lee, who also turns in a fine performance).

The true star of the film, though, isn't McKellan. It isn't even Elijah Wood as Frodo, though his performance is surprisingly good. It's the incredible New Zealand landscape. This film is almost like a tourism ad for that country, with otherwordly mountains, intensely green fields, and a sense of newness, as if the billions of earth years were suddenly reversed in just this one spot.

While the beauty of the countryside is undeniable, and while the joys of seeing a great book brought to life are equally undeniable, I think it is also the film's greatest flaw. This is a pretty movie. It is a gorgeous movie. The characters are attractive, the landscapes stunning, the special effects (usually) seamless. I love it because it makes real what my mind's eye already saw. It encapsulates the idea of Frodo into the person of Elijah Wood. It serves as the illustration of the novel. Books with pictures!

I can supply the heart of the film because I've read the books. I can bring with me the understanding of what it's all about, what it can mean, who these characters are, what their real struggles will be. I am an active participant in making the movie work.

But for those who haven't read the books, for those who can't bring all this baggage along, unpacking important elements at need, is this a film worth watching? My husband gives it two stars. I give it five. I guess that's your answer.