Mostly because I want to talk about text vs. film.

I saw it last night, and my overall feeling was that, while there were things that were undeniably cool (I loved the Hobbit Hole, and Ian McKellen was EXCELLENT as Gandalf; also lots of the architectural details in the Mines of Moria), it was ultimately an unnecessary enterprise to make this film. Why? Because no matter what Hollywood tries to do, they just can't make it BIG enough somehow; I came to the conclusion that the reason it just wasn't working for me was the loss of the prose---it's the WORDS that paint this particular picture, and you just can't SHOW that pit-of-the-stomach, sinking dread that the dark riders inspire, or the delightful mysteriousness of the elves, or the sense of Cotswold-like cosiness of The Shire.

I realise they only have so much time in a film, but I think if the battle scenes had been 1/3 as long, they'd have been able to give us some sense of the fellowship itself--the campfires, the songs & stories, the total coolness of Rivendell (which in the film suggested nothing so much as the Tavern on the Green!!), the evening gatherings, etc. I didn't think the elves were extraordinary enough, the hobbits were too human-looking, and I actively HATED the incidental music--it was intrusive & sappy. As for Frodo, he seemed capable of two expressions: wistful longing (complete w/penny whistle accompaniment), or frightened confusion.

Ultimately, I left the theatre feeling it was a good enough movie, but just another movie, and certainly not special or extraordinary enough to warrant a second viewing. A disappointment, but not an altogether unexpected one; on the bright side, I think I'll give the book a re-read over the Xmas hols.

I'm interested in exploring this taking-the -written-word to-the-silver-screen idea; while it's an obvious truism that "the book is always better", I'd be keen to hear what some others have to say on the subject.

D.