Grade: B
Rumors of the film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy have swarmed within the film and literature worlds since the mid-’90s. Then, at the flick of a nerdy English kid’s broomstick, the buzz seemed to taper off in the wake of the thunder that was and is “Harry Potter.” The book about that “nice English boy wizard” seemed to have more appeal in recent months than the book about a nymphish elf boy protecting a ring that could violently enslave the world. But whereas “Potter” plays nicely for your mother, “Lord of the Rings” exhaustively entertains for your hip, older, mysterious cousin.
In his mainstream directorial debut, Peter Jackson takes on the daunting task of bringing Tolkien’s imagination to the big screen in this first of the three films. He succeeds on many levels. Most noticeably, the vivid and picturesque scenes make “Rings” exceedingly interesting to watch. From actual landscapes in several continents to CGI-created scenes, Jackson successfully creates a fantastic new world for the audience to live in for three hours. His use of special effects helps to tell the story without becoming the story, something some films struggle with. Sometimes, though, these scenes can overwhelm as much as they dazzle–eye candy so sweet it gives cavities. And when you digest as much as this lengthy film feeds, the sweetness begins to wear thin.
Luckily, the intense story of “Rings” picks up where the scenery leaves off. Elijah Wood (“Deep Impact”) stars as Frodo, caretaker of the ring. He and his band of fellow hobbits, men, a dwarf, an elf and a wizard form the fellowship of the ring on a mission to destroy it the only way they know of–by returning it to its place of origin.
This group of noble characters includes Ian McKellen (“Gods and Monsters”) as Gandalf, the wizard. Known for his more “dignified” roles, Sir Ian appears to relish this fantasy role. The same can be said for Wood, who may have seemed like an odd choice to play Frodo initially, but rises to the challenge. His whimpers are surprisingly effective, and subtle, stoic bravery breathes life into the unexpected hero.
Combating Frodo and friends are a handful of ring-seekers, including a group of nine terror-inducing, dark, faceless warriors on equally frightening horses, figures that may give Darth Vader a run for his money in overall cinematic scariness; and Saruman, a corrupt wizard who has some ironic resemblance to the current most-wanted man in the world. Saruman creates an army of visually nasty, gnarly demons sent to gain the ring and scare the pants off the audience.
As the first in a known, already in production, film trilogy, “Rings” succeeds. It sets up a righteous quest with the good so good and the bad so scary. It introduces the characters and begins to show their evolution from peace keepers to heroes. And it does all of this with stunning scenes and a gripping pace.
But as a film alone, which every release is unless packaged as a DVD collection or double feature, “Rings” fails to deliver any concrete resolution. As true to the book as the adaptation may be, ending with the separation of the fellowship into different missions, any viewer will feel a little unsatisfied. Unless the promise of the sequel is imminent–as in, you can movie-hop next door to see it–a film must reach one conclusion or another. “Rings” simply doesn’t.
Even “The Empire Strikes Back” concluded to some degree while simultaneously exciting the viewer at the potential of its successor. And the films of that trilogy, which have more than one similarity to this one, can be watched as a set or as individuals. Judging by its first installment, “Lord of the Rings” will not offer that kind of insurance.
But as a fantasy epic and as an adaptation, “Rings” entertains and makes us excited about what is to come.
