The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (shortened to LOTR from here on) is the Holy Bible of fantasy novels. J.R.R. Tolkien did not invent elves, dwarves or trolls, but he was the first to create a detailed world for them, full of history and legend. He treated his land, called Middle-Earth, with a respect and dignity never matched by any author previous, and because of it fans have a unique reverence for the man. As such, turning LOTR into film comes with a lot of pressure; for instance, a screenwriter can get away with making drastic changes to a Michael Crichton novel, but altering LOTR would be sacrilegious.

The other pressure is financial; with several hundred million dollars sunk into back-to-back-to-back production of the three books, any problem with Fellowship of the Ring, the first installment, could spell death for the other two. However, I can confidently say that any worries or concerns the studio may have had are about to disappear, because Fellowship of the Ring is simply incredible. Director Peter Jackson has managed to capture the magic of Tolkien?s world and turn it into a moving drama that will undoubtedly be the next Star Wars. Barring some misstep in The Two Towers or Return of the King, the second and third parts of the trilogy, Peter Jackson?s name will enter the fantasy annals alongside George Lucas and Steven Spielberg as a key player in the genre?s history.

The story is complex and involves over a dozen characters so I will not go into detail about it here. In a nutshell, a hobbit named Frodo (a hobbit looks human but stands about waist-high) has to journey to the evil land of Mordor to destroy a Ring that in the wrong hands could enslave the world. Along the way he picks up companions from the Elf, Dwarf and Human realms, and they fight against all manner of beast, from orcs to trolls to goblins. The first half of the film is spent introducing the various characters to us, explaining Middle-Earth?s pertinent history, and setting up the reasons for Frodo?s journey. The second half of the film begins the quest to Mordor. It is a powerful tale, one Jackson and screenwriters Philippa Bowens and Fran Walsh convert very well to the screen.

Fellowship?s cast includes an impressive number of seasoned actors combined with a host of newer faces. Sir Ian McKellan plays Gandalf, an old wizard who discovers much of the peril facing the world. McKellan is wonderful in the role, giving his character an old man?s mirth combined with a desperate drive to see the side of the Good win. Christopher Lee plays Saruman, the head of Gandalf?s order, with a steely gaze and an air of knowledge befitting an ancient wizard. Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler play immortal Elves named Elrond, Galadriel and Arwen. The first two do fine with their roles but are not given enough screen time to really get into them, while Tyler struggles a bit with hers. Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean and Orlando Bloom play Aragorn, Boromir and Legolas, three fighters who help Frodo on his journey. Their characters do not get a chance to really define themselves beyond being fighters, so they wind up being, the good swordsman, the shifty swordsman and the elf who never misses with an arrow. Finally, the various key hobbits, Frodo, Bilbo, Sam, Pippin and Merry are played by Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan respectively, and of them all, it is Wood as Frodo who outdoes the rest. Wood?s face and movements all become so convincing that by the three-hour mark, you truly can forget he is not a three-feet high Hobbit. When compared to the acting in other epic fantasy films, the cast of Fellowship of the Ring is a cut above, despite certain character limitations.

To make LOTR a true success, Peter Jackson had to somehow recreate Tolkien?s Middle-Earth on the screen, a task with which he apparently had no problems. Everything from the cute underground hobbit dwellings to the very evil land of Mordor is perfectly rendered, thanks to cinematographer Andrew Lesnie and production designer Grant Major. The special effects team deserves praise as well for some truly terrifying monsters; their orcs are much more evil and scary than anything I had ever pictured while reading the books, and the CGI is almost never noticeably fake.

Fans of the trilogy will notice some glaring omissions and changes to the first book. No vitally important plot points were lost, while a few items from the second book have been moved to the first film to keep the action and drama flowing. About the only thing that I expect the diehard fans to balk at is the lack of history behind each character. While Frodo and Gandalf, arguably the two most important characters in the film, are given the time to establish their motivations and personalities, the sections from the book where each character explains why he is there and why he is willing to help Frodo on his quest is lost; instead, many of the supporting characters just seem to be there. One character in particular, Liv Tyler?s Arwen, has had her story drastically increased in size compared to the book and her actions don?t quite work. She appears without preamble, takes an intensely important role in protecting Frodo, and then disappears again, all with little in the way of explanation.

For parents wondering if Fellowship of the Ring is alright for their children to see, I say it depends on their age. The film is a bit much for younger children, with fight scenes that rival Braveheart for gore and violence, but like Star Wars, it should become a favourite for older children who can handle the action. Peter Jackson?s film is epic, magic, and moving and is likely the only film of 2001 that I will vividly remember in ten years. I highly recommend it as the film to go see over the Christmas holidays, as it is the beginning of what will be a wonderful, long-to-be-cherished trilogy that expertly tells a story many thought could never be properly adapted to the big screen.

Grade: A

Tim Chandler

In a world where you can buy a satellite phone with GPS capabilities and pinpoint your coordinates to within five feet, it is hard to believe anyone could ever get lost on this Earth of ours. But wind the clock back to just under a century ago and it happened all of the time. Back in the 1910s, the world was still in the process of being discovered; even during the First World War, many islands and Polar Regions remained uncharted. As such, anyone exploring unknown regions could disappear without a trace, even as the Industrial Revolution began.

Such was life when a Captain named Ernest Shackleton decided that he was to be the first to cross Antarctica. He had originally wanted to be the first to reach the South Pole, but was beaten by Roald Amundson, so this new adventure sounded like the next best thing. He and his crew set out in 1914 in a boat named The Endurance, and expected the journey to place them in the record books. What happened instead is one of the most incredible stories of human courage I have ever heard.

Shackleton?s boat got lodged in the polar ice floes just short of their destination, beginning what would become a 16-month ordeal to return to the civilized world. The crew of 28 seamen were tested in ways few today could likely handle, including living under an overturned lifeboat for months straight. Their story is so amazing, so unbelievably outrageous, that were it to be made into a Hollywood picture, critics would deride it as over-the-top. Imagine trying to find a small island 800 miles to the East in a lifeboat, but being unable to use a sexton to plot your course because of perpetual cloud cover. Imagine living alongside 27 other men for over a year on the same patch of ice and not going insane. How much can one person truly take before cracking up?

Based on the Endurance, a book on the ill-fated journey by Caroline Alexander, and handed-down tales from the descendants of the crew, the documentary is exactly the kind of heroic tale I love. It reveals the true measure of Man, just how far it is possible for us to go as a species. This is Cast Away minus the beginning and the end – pure survival, instinct and mental stamina.

Were this documentary simply a bunch of static pictures of the crew and the voices of their descendants retelling their grandparents? tales, it would still be engrossing. But George Butler, The Endurance?s director, has something incredible that he uses to take his documentary to a higher level: actual footage of the whole disastrous voyage. Incredibly, one of the crewmen was an amateur videographer, and had brought along a camera to capture the historic journey. So Butler is able to show us the games the men played to pass the time while waiting for the ice to break up, the pack of dogs they trusted to get them across the frozen continent, the looks of despair in the eyes of men who thought they would never see civilization again. Everything is right there, a better drama than Hollywood could ever make.

Narrated by Liam Neeson, The Endurance is the rare documentary that I will recommend to everyone, because its story is one that can be universally appreciated. Words like heroism, bravery and courage were created to describe men like Ernest Shackleton, who set out looking for glory, but wound up finding a strength of spirit so powerful that his deeds rank up there with the greatest tales of our history. This is Apollo 11 returning to Earth in one piece, Terry Fox going as far as he did before succumbing to cancer, and Nelson Mandela emerging from prison to lead his nation. It is the human spirit?s desire to survive tested again and again. A religious person might well see the tale of Job in this tale. Whatever your angle, this is a story everyone should hear. It is simply, truly, amazing.

If you see only one documentary this year (certainly the limit for most of us), make it The Endurance: Shackleton?s Legendary Antarctic Expedition. Check out the doc?s website (www.endurancethemovie.com) to see if it is playing in your area.

Grade: A

Tim Chandler

As a film critic who sets his own schedule, I have the luxury of skipping the most obviously mediocre films each year. It?s nice, because there are about three awful films made for every one decent experience and this way I don?t waste my time. However, whenever I catch a movie with friends, my power to veto is frequently overruled by a vote of the majority, which is how I ended up seeing Not Another Teen Movie (hereafter NATM).

A spoof of She?s All That, Varsity Blues, Bring It On and others, NATM is in a way brilliant. The team of screenwriters really did their homework, combining characters from different films so seamlessly that occasionally you do not immediately catch the transition from She?s All That to Bring It On to Never Been Kissed. Mia Kirshner plays Catherine Wyler, sister to the most popular boy in school. She is mostly a parody of Sarah Michelle Gellar?s vixen from Cruel Intentions, but at times she is also Anna Paquin?s sister from She?s All That. Chris Evans plays Jake Wyler, a combination or Prinze Jr. in She?s All That, James Van Der Beek in Varsity Blues and Ryan Philippe in Cruel Intentions. As mimicry, NATM is brilliant. As comedy, it is something else entirely.

There are two rough categories of teen comedies: those that are tasteful (anything with Drew Barrymore, Reese Witherspoon or Freddie Prinze Jr.) and those that are not (Say it Isn?t So, Tomcats, anything by the Wayans brothers). NATM suffers as a comedy because its screenwriters unsuccessfully attempt to cross the two. One of the film?s low points is a scene in which a teenaged woman French kisses a grandmother. As they kiss their tongues wag back and forth and streams of saliva drip between them. It goes on for two solid minutes. In Scary Movie, it might work. In Never Been Kissed or Cruel Intentions it never would. So which audience are the writers trying to win over? The typical Drew Barrymore fan will turn their nose up at the disgusting parody while Scary Movie fans probably didn?t even see or enjoy Never Been Kissed.

One of NATM?s main selling points is that each of its characters is a clich鮠While true, the jokes run dry before the first half-hour is over. Deon Richmond is Malik, the token black guy. He spend the movie saying things like ?Damn!? and ?Bling bling? (if someone could help me understand that last saying, I?d appreciate it, I didn?t think I was old but?), which might be funny except that in his first scene, he actually says to the audience ?I?m the token black guy and all I do is say things like ?Damn!? and ?That?s whack!?? It would be much funnier for the audience to realize this on their own, but any such revelation is impossible when NATM spells everything out for us.

Many other movies get spoofed in NATM, including some choices that seem utterly random. I can understand having Molly Ringwald show up in a long cameo, as her part in creating the teen movie industry is key, but if you have her there, why spoof a scene from The Breakfast Club and not use her? And Almost Famous? American Beauty? These aren?t teen movies, so the occasional gag at their expense is out of place.

While much of the humour falls flat, NATM does have moments. Childish moments more often than not, but laughter is laughter. Randy Quaid gets a few good lines as the drunken, out of work father, while having a foreign exchange student named Areola go topless in every one of her scenes is slightly inspired. But more often than not, the characters are as useless as Britney Spears? opinion on politics. I would mention the direction by Joel Gallen, but he so closely mirrors his source material that in a way he really didn?t direct the film at all.

With a cheap cast of cute young faces, and older actors who need the money, the producers of NATM likely have a profitable series on their hands. Does anyone doubt that by fall 2002 we will be seeing previews for Not Another Teen Movie Sequel? Judging from the number of trailers for upcoming teen movies attached to my viewing of NATM, there will be more than enough new material for them to mock. I can only hope, probably uselessly, that somewhere in the sequel?s production, they hire an intelligent writer, one who knows more than diarrhea and fart jokes. Because when even those aren?t funny (this from a guy who is a sad fan of them), you?ve got a terminal problem.

Luckily, my friends agreed with me that not Another Teen Movie was an unfunny mess. This means that I?ve got some leverage, maybe getting my way the next time or three, before once again one of them will say ?Oh come on, it won?t be that bad!? and I?ll be forced into seeing the latest Jack Black abomination.

Grade: C-

Tim Chandler