[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incident.

Ebert's puzzling review, which is favorable in content, but less than enthusiastic in tone, seems to complain that the movie is not a book, and that the movie has more scenes of action than the book. He also thinks that too much of the action is carried by the non-Hobbits, but this is the case in the first book of the trilogy also. This is puzzling in a professional critic, who obviously knows that a movie can't be judged as literature.

[ThomasMore]

But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters.

I certainly did not see it this way. Elijah Wood was superb. And he played the role well. And Jackson's adaptation kept him in the forefront. I was actually surprised to see how much these feisty little hobbits did battle against the cave troll. Ebert is seeing something I surely don't.

[HairOfTheDog]

Linking to Tolkien list