Still, after some consideration, I now agree with the options made by Peter Jackson, and think that the movie prologue narrated by Galadriel was the wisest choice. It is a fascinating moment of the story, that had to be shortened for obvious reasons.

In the book, the council is where the whole story of the rings is first explained, and many passages from the past ages of Middle Earth are unveiled. I felt more uneasy with how short the Council of Elrond was. If the so called `purists' may not approve the removal of Tom Bombadil altogether, it should be comprehensible that the travel from Hobbiton to Rivendel is a very long and detailed one and could easily make a movie on it's own.

Jackson also took some liberties with the story, and made some right choices along the way. The assault of the riders at Weathertop is another great example, and it captures that feeling of danger, density and atmosphere that are the main characteristics of the tale. The first time the four hobbits meet a black rider on the road, for example, is absolutely faithful to the feeling of the book. Peter Jackson went out to achieve the impossible and came out with a recreation of the original that is pure and true to the story in every detail. It's author, Tolkien, dedicated a considerable part of his life developing this continent's background, it's mythology and origins, it's different kinds of people, cultures and languages, and therefore it's geographic references are determinant to the unfolding of the story of the One Ring. The narrative roots are incredibly long and detailed, and the storyline is deeply connected with the creation of a fantastic continent from a time unknown called `Middle Earth'. Peter Jackson directed a film that was considered, for a very long time, impossible to make, and not only for technical reasons. The Lord of the Rings is a fairy-tale of myth and fantasy. After watching it a few times on DVD, and thinking about it for some time now, I find myself loving this film more and more.

Was it perfect? Well, maybe not, but what an achievement. I really liked it, but left the theater with as many doubts as I had before. Having read the books several years ago, I went to see this `impossible' film when it came out with many doubts on my mind. Seems to me that it is bound to the same fate of Tolkien's books, destined to be a target for the same type of misunderstandings that keep attacking this literary masterpiece many decades after it's first publication. Many viewers refer to it as being childish, boring and uninteresting. It is with no surprise that Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring film has received such mixed critics.

The middle ita