Rating: 
Summary: Great visuals, but...
Review: Like many, I have also read the books and was aware of the story and characters going into the film. While the visuals, especially that stunning battle scene at the start of the film, were done to near perfection - it did miss the mark in a more fundamental way.Too much screen time was spent drawing out and languishing over several dramatic events of the film. I found myself thinking, "Okay we know this guy is going to die, let's move the story along". For example, we see a character get hit with an arrow, muster strength to fight some more, then almost die, then get hit with another arrow, again muster more strength and fight again, then almost die, then get hit with yet another arrow, and tries to muster his strength again... And to top it off this long drawn out scene is full of added elements that were not in the book. The film was littered with examples like this (the character that almost drowns at the end of the film - also painfully drawn out. Any time Frodo puts on the ring - painfully drawn out) Yes film is a medium different that that of a novel, but if Jackson wanted to make a three hour movie, he should have spend more screen time developing character and plot motivations. This would keep the audience from getting lost and from asking, "why are our characters going to this place?", and "who is this guy?". Once characters and key plot point is properly setup with their motivations explained, then the drama will naturally come out, and it won't need the added drama effects, heavy sound and score to force the audience to feel a certain way. Jackson simply lets the characters and story get buried with the overuse of dramatic effects. Very little time was spent developing Frodo and Sam, as likeable real characters. They just appeared as cardboard cutouts borrowed from the Phantom Menace, with no real motivation and human connection to anyone else in the film. It's a good film to see once, but just for the special effects.
Rating: 
Summary: The Best Film Ever Made
Review: Previous to watching the Lord of the Rings, the Wizard of Oz remained my all-time favorite movie, even well into my adult-hood. Now that special place inside my imaginative heart has been sufficiently re-filled, and re-fueled, by Jackson's Lord of the Rings. A better movie does not exist. I would have gladly paid fifteen dollars to see it, and probably will, as I return to the movie theater over and over again. I can't stop thinking about it, or stop re-playing the richness of the landscapes in my mind. This film really captured the essence of J.R.R. Tolkien's first book of his Lord of the Rings triolgy. It is going to be a long year waiting for the next installment, The Two Towers. If this doesn't get the Best Picture Oscar, I have given up all hope in the Motion Picture Academy.
Rating: 
Summary: Strong visuals, acting... so-so script and editing
Review: This movie is great fun. Like many people, I've adored these books since childhood. However, I have several nagging criticisms. First, the film opens with an unnecessarily long exposition in which the ancient history of Middle Earth is told, and a little too bluntly. The necessary background could have been explained more briefly by Gandalf in his Bag End discussion with Frodo, as in the book. Strangely, as if the movie was inexpertly planned from the start, there are points in the film in which it is obvious that significant moments (even whole battles) have been edited out of the film due to its unwieldy length. This throws off the flow of the movie, leaving some moments pregnant with the expectation of events that never occur. And yet, other moments and sentiments that are *not* in the book are inserted. For example, there is a contrived scene on a staircase in Moria, complete with uncomfortably contemporary dwarf-tossing humor. The wizard battle in Sauroman's tower, which is not described in the book, would have been better left to the imagination with a quick cut away to other action. As it stands in this scene, the effects are old, hackneyed and inconsistent with Gandalf's capabilities elsewhere in the story. On the technical side, this film is remarkable in so many ways. The scenery is unbelievable. The attention to detail in the sets and props is, as we have all read, fantastic. The orchestral score is rich and emotive. The only weak spots were a few of the special effects mentioned above and the disappointingly heavy-handed sound design. Frequently, to emphasize powerful moments of magic, voices and dialog became harshly distorted with various effects, to such an extent that the text was sometimes indecipherable. Finally, Jackson tosses in a bit of traditional Hollywood schmaltz that feels disappointingly un-Tolkien. The sugary "empowerment of the little guy" sentiment, the love interest between Arwen and Aragorn, etc. Overall, the movie is gorgeous and powerful, but has the mark of an almost-but-not-quite-at-the-top-of-his-game director whose love of the story exceeds his storytelling craft.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent! Blew my expectations out of the water!
Review: I'm forced to give this film a 5-star rating, despite some problems I had with it, because anything less just isn't a fair rating. A devout lover of the novels by Tolkien, I felt some apprehension about the story being turned into a film... it is an *extremely* long and detatiled story with lots of twists and turns, a myriad of characters, and a plot that, to say the least, is a bit complicated. I felt that much of the story would be "glossed-over" in an attempt to make it more endearing to the audiences of today. But, I headed to the theater and after three hours, I found that I was pleasantly surprised. Some parts were left out, but I am aware that not everything in the book could be put into a movie. There were some things added that, actually I did like, and after getting over the "Arwen deal" (as I so lovingly call it now) I found myself in love with this movie. I still must say that taking out characters like Glorfindel and shrinking Elrond's part a bit in an attempt to give a female more screen time does not settle well with me. (Arwen is in the novel's story, but she has a much smaller part than seen on film... I would rather have had that be much closer to the book than it was). Also, one of the better parts of the book (I won't say any more than Frodo and the Sword... readers will know what I speak of) was not given as much time as I would have liked, and much of the danger we felt as readers was not accurately transferred to film. Still, very minor problems when one takes in the wondrous scope of the film. Settings are beautiful, believable and 100% true to Tolkien's descriptions. Characters are portrayed with depth and emotion. Also, one does not have to be familar with the novels... an introduction to the movie helps introduce newbies to Middle-earth and the story of the One Ring. A superb job all around... acting, plot pacing, visual effects, and an awesome film score... everything is great. Especially McKellen's stellar performance as Gandalf. Go and see this movie, even if you have never heard of this story before, nor read the novels. You *will* want to see it again, I guarantee it.
Rating: 
Summary: I'm less than enthusiastic...
Review: Now, we know that adult moral ambiguity was not the strong suit of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. That was never a problem, because Tolkien's narrative technique was so gifted and his prose so perfect for expressing his unique style of escapist fantasy. However, even if it is one of the greatest fantasy novels, its influence upon the fantasy genre has been absolutely one of the worst. Ever since the books were first published fifty years ago and then exploded into popularity about thirty years ago, there have been countless rip-off attempts at creating a Tolkien-esque world by mediocre writers. You can find them lining the sci-fi shelves of your local bookstore to this day. Their qualities are a given: all of that hackneyed sword-and-sorcery Good vs. Evil rubbish, with NONE of Tolkien's magic. There's something kind of disheartening about seeing the Lord of the Rings turned into a bloated box-office spectacle. Tolkien needed nothing more than paper and ink (and his vast imagination) to create one of the best fantasies ever, not a multi-million dollar budget and a bevy of Hollywood darlings. But in the hands of any director, can this movie be anything more than a medieval Star Wars? If you can't read the book, then you shouldn't be exposed to the story in any form. There are exceptions to the basic rule-of-thumb that fantasy movies are ridiculous, and adaptations of fantasy novels are even worse. I enjoyed Willow, partly because it wasn't as pretentious and interminable as this pompous movie. The screen adaptation of the Wizard of Oz remains a beloved institution, but I'm glad to I read the L. Frank Baum book to my children before letting them see the movie. As a result, they weren't as thrilled by that flick as most kids are. I'm also glad they read the Lord of the Rings before bringing them to this one. The best movie adaptations are those that bring out something that was under-developed or hard to express within the context of the source novel. This is NOT one of them. One annoying problem is that movies tend to stamp an actor's face upon one's memory, so that a name is always associated with that face. Moreover, I found that the manic pacing and lavish sets smothered rather than brought out the emotional impact of the story. There were a lot of things from the LOR that just couldn't be conveyed here. The philological aspect of Tolkien's Celtic/Teutonic lore, the sense of a distant mythological past, and all the wonderful effects that a great book produces upon the reader only through the magic of storytelling, not the "magic" of 21st century computer technology. If you have young kids who haven't read the books, don't bring them to this show. You will be spoiling one of the best reading experiences they'll ever have. This movie has a huge budget, state-of-the-art effects, a decent cast, and a decent director. It lacks, however, the one ingredient that is not reproduceable: Tolkien's magic.
Rating:
Summary: Fantasy Fun
Review: This movie is a must see for fantasy lovers everywhere!!! This movie has everything, Love, Adventure, comedy just everything! The acters in it are wonderful they have great talent, they make you forget you are in a theater watching a wonderful fantasy movie. The director I commened for his wonderful dedication to the movie!!!!! I cant wait to see the next movie (The Two Towers).
Rating:
Summary: Better than I ever imagined!!!!!
Review: I went into this movie thinking "This will be such a flop, just like Dungeons & Dragons." I figured that they would ruin another one of my favorite past times in a movie. I never expected what I saw. There are only three words to describe the movie. A-MAZ-ING! The actors portrayed the characters just as I had imagined it when I read the book. I never expected such an amazing show. Almost all of the dialouge was exactly as in the book, and I only noticed one thing that was different than the book, except things that they had to leave out. When we got out of the movie, the first thing my dad said was "Wanna go to the next showing?" It was that good. You could not catagorize this movie. It is not a chick-flick, not a manly movie (lol), it is for anyone. I know it left me unbearably anxious for next December, when Two Towers comes out. I would reccommend this movie to ANYONE!
Rating: 
Summary: He's a pinball wizard.....
Review: Jackson movie about some place called Middle Earth which has a giant squid (where's Kirk Douglas when you need him, eh?) Star Wars was criticised in it's day for it's bad dialogue but in retrospect it was witty and you liked the characters for it. The colourless characters and earnest, incomprehensible dialogue offers little for the kiddies here. It's a hoot for us wrinklies, though. Jackson's directorial style consists of an establishing shot followed by a pan into someone's face until they fill the screen and then staying there for minutes at a time. Cut to another character and then slowly pan in again until you see their blackheads. One of them mentions the ring; show ring on table and pan in until it's a very big ring indeed. It's uncomfortable and annoying, not to mention psychologically unwise as it's considered an invasion of personal space if someone puts their face up close to yours. After the 180th close up of Messrs Lee and McKellen, don't be surprised if your eyes turn back to front inside their sockets, drop down your throat and a red sign with a hundred pops out your head. The plot consists of a chap called Frodo getting chased by men on horseback, putting on the ring, falling flat on his back, getting up again, gets chased by the horsemen, puts on the ring, falls over, gets up again, gets chased again. I don't know why they didn't just tie him to a stretcher and drag him around, it would save everyone yelling 'FRODO!" All the time. Some wag in the audience picked up on this and yelled out "FRODO" At least three times. He totally cracked me up and from then on I was gone. Everything made me laugh. Gandalf's hat. The Elve's hairy feet. That Robbie Coltrane look-alike with the braided beard crying and banging his head on the altar. That neon door in the mountain that looked like one of those boutiques down the UK's King's Road. Those sea horses straight out of that bear commercial. There's something killingly funny about the word 'Mordar' for some reason, too. I've never had a giggle attack like this before during a film and It's painful trying to hold it in so as not to disturb your neighbours. I tried hurting my hand to distract myself like Micheal Caine in 'The Ipcress File' only to be confronted by a hysterical conference of Elves and Hobbits in a village over who should destroy the ring. They gurn, they snarl, they get a camera up their nostrils. Someone delivers the immortal line: "Never trust an elf!" Someone help me, I'm dying. There's also a chap called Legola. Well, he does look a bit plastic. Does Legola get his leg over? Is there a shire of wenches? Sadly, women don't get much of a look in during the film. The plot staggers on and more gut busting dialogue insues. "Yonder, see Iceguard!" "We shall go forth to Loftylorry!" I regain my composure after a bit of aggro in a mine. Later, Brit actor Sean Bean falls over in some leaves and begins sobbing "FRODO! FRODO!" Please no, not that name again. I'm off. This time some of the audience Joins me. Believe me, if your bereaved, in the middle of a divorce or depressed, this film will save you, it's a laugh riot. Suddenly Rawhead Rex turns up. Once relegated to straight to video, he has finally made it to the big screen. You can't keep a good bad guy down, I guess. Rawhead Rex's appearance leads to a really funny death scene in which a character falls down mortally wounded, gets up again and fights, falls down mortally wounded again, gets up and fights, falls down again, gets up and fights. Is he secretly related to Frodo? The audience is really cracking up now, it's the comedy of the year. Another chap called Sam has a swim, but is saved. "I'm glad you're with me, Sam" Frodo tells the dripping Hobbit, but we're far from glad as he's the one whose been yelling "FRODO!" The entire film. Boy, three down, six hours to go. I recover on the way home, open the bathroom cabinet when I get there and see a box of 'Frador'. I'm off again.
Rating:
Summary: Things DIE HARD Tolkien fans have to realize.
Review: I am a big Tolkien fan, and I consider myself to know a lot about the books. I have listed here several aspects of the movie that the true and DIE HARD Tolien fans need to realize before jumping to conclusions... 1)Tom Bombadil and Farmer Maggot were great but unless you read the book you would have no idea what the significance of these characters are. The telling of these side-stories would have taken another hour or so 2)Glorfindel wasn't THAT important, but ultiamtely Arwen was. She was the internal conflict that was going on within Aragorn, and deserved the right as Elrond's daughter to have a larger role. 3)The lines of Legolas in the book were merely limited to the history of the elves, and non-tolkien fans seeing this epic for the first time, wouldn't understand them without another long drawn out part about them. 4)A movie has to do exactly what it is called, it was to move. People that have read the books and understand the story wouldn't be bored by the long drawn out scenes of the Fellowship admiring the countryside, and walking along the mountains. The wolf scene in the book posed nothing more than a simple encounter, and wouldn't have made sense because people (non-Tolkien knowing) don't understand the way Tolkien portrayed animals as having there own minds and societys. 5)I thought the Moria scene was great and just as long as it needed to be, the Balrog was just as I pictured it in my mind, and Gimli discovering the tomb and his reaction was much more suitable for people that don't understand. 6 and last) Bottom-line, this movie wasn't made to please the Die-Hard Tolkien fan, and thats not a flaw at all. Peter Jackson did an excellent job translating this book into a modern format that people that in live in a society where "Dude Where's My Car" and "Not Another Teen Movie(good god)" (THESE MOVIES *** BAD, WHY DID THEY EVEN COME OUT) are 'good movies.' If you look passed its mishaps and look at the part of the story that was discovered, I think you can see what I mean. Oh and another thing, the person that said Gollum wasn't in the movie enough is stupid, hes actually in the book one time, and in the movie 3 times. I understood his position in the books better after I saw the movie. EP
Rating:
Summary: An epic movie for an epic book.
Review: A movie cannot tell all the details that make a book a literary masterpiece but "Fellowship Of The Ring" comes close. A visual masterpiece. Pure enjoyment. How good was it? A the start of the three hour movie I needed to go to the bathroom. I dared not miss a thing so I didn't. So good, in fact, that I will go again in the next week.
| 
