Rating: 
Summary: ...three movies to bind them......
Review: Holding people spellbound was what J.R.R. Tolkien did best by writing a story that had thousands of years of back story and multitudinous cultural short stories that surround it.Peter Jackson's translation of it to film is very good. When I originally read the books, I never caught the relational nuances between the characters, but this film painted for me a portion of the story that I had an inability to visualize. The weight of the burden carried by the main character of the film is masterfully exposed in the film as opposed to the book, where, if I recall correctly, Frodo simply states that it is wearing on him. In translation, Jackson expanded on the sketchy vision of the ethereal world that Tolkein laid out for his characters who wear the One Ring. In the film when Frodo places it on his finger, he is instantly immersed in a parallel world in which spirits have substance and the world he left behind is but a faint shadow. A violent wind constantly blows across a stark black and white terrain, and the nearly blind and shrouded black riders are revealed as ancient shining kings. I do not remember Tolkein fleshing this out as well as Jackson does. The book and the movie place a great deal of emphasis on the Ring. But what the movie does that is subtle, but laudable, is to de-emphasize the portrayal of power bound in all the other unusual objects in Tolkein's fantasy. Instead, Jackson integrates their mystical powers with the characters who carry them, never bothering to point out the inherent qualities of the character versus that of the item they carry. (I do not have room in this review to please the purists who would argue about the sword of Isildur and the light of Galadriel). In short, it expands Middle-Earth (the world setting of the books and the films) into one of flesh, blood, and tears while letting the mysticism seem less otherworldly. However, if you just don't get it (morality plays in a fantasy setting), you won't like it.
Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece
Review: Hollywood can do nothing greater than this movie. From cinematography, to score, to visual effects, special effects, costumes, to the actual adaptation of the novel, etc.
People who really loved the books will notice some minor changes or ommisions in this telling. Any serious fan will probably disagree with a few of these details. Nevertheless, an incredible amount managed to get into the movie and nothing serious was really lost. With my incredibly high expectations for this movie my expectations were exceeded.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Movie that Could Have Been a Great Movie
Review: Honestly, this is a frustrating review to write. The Lord of the Rings has got to be the most entertaining film I have seen in years. But it is also the most disappointing film I have ever seen in my life. There is love and laughter and fear and pride and action and drama and special effects that make Jurassic Park look like stop action photography. But through it all, all I could think, over and over again, was, "Gee, this movie would be so cool if they had just filmed it the way Tolkien wrote it." My biggest gripe with director Peter Jackson is that, while adapting the story for the big screen, he has also adapted it for a twenty-first century moviegoer, which is to say, a teenager or a college student with the attention span of a hamster with a caffeine habit. In Tolkien's original masterpiece, by the time we've read a hundred pages we're up to our helmet plumes in mysteries and questions. Who is Strider? Where the heck did Gandalf get to? What the heck is this Ring that Bilbo stuck Frodo with anyway? (By the way, I know that if you haven't already read the book or seem the movie, nothing in the previous few sentences makes any sense to you. Sorry.) But Jackson apparently decided to tax the concentration and patience of the modern movie audience no more than absolutely necessary. From start to finish, he lays everything out plain and simple in strict, linear, chronological, no-room-for-doubt-or-imagination order. Maybe Jackson figured that no one would miss the lack of suspense and mystery if he put threw around enough special effects. In a movie as FX laden as The Lord of the Rings would have to be, you would think that, art aside, Jackson would cut the effects to a minimum just to stay in budget. But, for instance, it's not enough that Bilbo gets mad. He actually has to momentarily grow pointy teeth. This movie gives new meaning to the phrase "over the top" in the scene of the brief transformation of the elven Lady of Lothlorien (apologies again to those who have no idea what I am talking about). Tolkien tells us "She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring ...." Jackson's FX crew decided they knew better and turned the Lady into something so whacked out that she would be alot more at home in the final scene of 2001: A Space Odyssey. And then there's the wizardly Sceptre-Fu fight. It would have looked great in The Matrix, but here, it's just embarassing. Speaking of the Lady of Lothlorien, another thing I couldn't stomach was Jackson's periodic obeiances to the currently ruling PC powers that be. The Lady of Lothlorien has become pretty much the Earth goddess that Tolkien neglected to put in his story. Then there's the wizard Saruman, deciding he has to go to war and tearing down the forests to make room for his war machines. Tolkien has Gandalf relate this in a poignantly short and simple manner: "I looked on [the valley below] and saw that, whereas it had once been green and fair, it was now filled with pits and forges." But Jackson seizes the opportunity that Tolkien missed to beat us over the head with an environmentalism message and obsesses over this scene for far too long and in far too much detail. To my own surprise, I can't get too mad about how the movie enlarges the role of the elven woman Arwen. It actually works, fitting in well with the story, partly because Liv Tyler does an excellent job of making Arwen a strong character without turning her into the "Arwen: Warrior Princess" that many fans were afraid of. And all that really gets sacrificed here is another elf character that we would never see again anyway. Unfortunately, the film's portrayal of the romance between Arwen and the human
Strider is really just a bunch of juvenile silliness. But more than a few good things can be said about the film as well. Without exception, the casting was excellent. I've already mentioned Liv Tyler as Arwen. Elijah Wood and Ian McKellan give us pretty much the best Frodo and Gandalf I can imagine. Christopher Lee is excellent as Saruman. As anyone who grew up watching Hammer Horror Films can tell you, Christopher Lee's bad guys make Hannibal Lecter look about as threatening as Richard
Simmons. Casting Lee, perhaps the twentieth century's most under-utilized actor, as Saruman was a stroke of nothing less than genius. The portrayal of the northern elves of Rivendell was nicely nuanced. I was surprised at how much the scenery resembled the way I imagined it when I read the book. The battle scene with the goblins was brilliant, from both visually and narratively. (Of course, this was one scene where Jackson took very few liberties with the original story. Hint, hint.) So it's a fun, entertaining movie. If you haven't read the book, you'll probably be wondering what I was raising such a ruckus about. Nevertheless, I still must contend that the movie falls far short of what it should have been. Tolkien is not the greatest writer to have ever lived and The Lord of the Rings is not the greatest novel ever written. But I am convinced that The Lord of the Rings is every bit as much a classic as any of those books we were force fed in high school and college. Fully understood, The Lord of the Rings is a serious, mature story (which just happens to be great fun) and it deserves a silver screen treatment that is in the same league as "Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Lawrence of Arabia". Jackson has given us a fun movie. We get from him what we deserve for the price of admission (or the price of the DVD). But Tolkien hasn't gotten what he deserved, and that's what I'm raising the ruckus about.
Rating:
Summary: Perplexed
Review: How anyone in their right mind could think that a movie is capable of recreating the written word 100% is beyond me. A book, by the very nature of it's medium, can delve into detail far more exponentially than a movie can ever hope to accomplish. Yes, even a grand epic such as this movie, "The Fellowship of the Ring." So to compare the movie to the book on the level of equating the two is, in my opinion, non sensical. What we do have here is a movie of breathtaking proportion. The story moves along at a good pace. The scenary is amazing. The special effects are done quite well considering they're not done by ILM. Let's be honest folks. Peter Jackson, the director, has remained true to the overall feel and the overall story of the book. The opening sequence alone should speak volumes to the fact that he loves this story. He is a Tolkein fan... Go see this movie. You will be thoroughly entertained. That, after all, is what we go to the movies for. Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: how could it not get 5 stars
Review: how could it not get 5 stars it is based upon the best novel of all time. they changed things they shouldn't have but it is still excellent.you need to buy it. i have it completely memorized!! watch it love it read the books. a helpful hint is watch the movies first because tolkein has so many places and names in his books if you watch the movie first it is a lot easier to keep them all straight. oh yeah and it has Orlando Bloom and ELijah Wood! THe 2 hottest guys on earth!
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition
Review: How long has it been since we last saw a quality Sci-Fi or Fantasy film? Most of the time whenever Hollywood makes a film about this genre it gets muddled up with special effects or gets too hyped-up for its own good. Now, along comes director Peter Jackson (The Frighteners) with his unique vision of this classic Tolkien trilogy, the Lord of the Rings. I must admit that I had reservations about these films but after seeing both the threatrical version and the Extended Edition, I much prefer the EE. For the simple fact that the films make more sense with those scenes added back into the film. Peter Jackson has done a wonderful job in the way he handled this movie, keeping true to the spirit of the original novel and treating fans of this trilogy with the respect they derserve. There is a special feature in this first set that I got a real kick out of; the Lord of the Rings: MTV Version spoof that appears on the first disk. Jack Black & Sarah Michelle Geller are hilarious in that little bit and this film with all of its special features comes very highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Where's the movie?
Review: How much is too much? Where is the line? How much CGI can you can put into a movie before it's a cartoon? I first noticed this trend with "Star Wars Episode 1: Phantom Menace" (and even worst in the sequel), but here it completely dominates all aspects of the movie. I knew I was in trouble when Frodo was being attacked by a dragon, and I knew he was safe because the dragon looked so animated, it couldn't have possably been there. I miss the days when the monsters were really there. They may have only been rubber and latex, but it was something physical that the actors could touch or interact with. My problem is that the effects are so overwhelming they over shadow everything else, even the story. And that's a shame, because the story is great bit of fantasy, with hobbits, dwarves, humans, kings sorcerers, kings, zombies. It is a tale of courage, bravery, nobility, sacrifice, and honor. But all that takes a back seat to technology. The only redeming value to this film is Viggo Morgenson's noble ranger. He was the only thing in the movie that was real. I realize my opinion will not be a populor one. I just believe that special effects should enhance the story, not be the excuse for making the movie.
Rating:
Summary: MAGICAL MYSTICAL DAYS OF YORE!
Review: Humans, Hobbits, Dwarfs, Elves, Fairies, trees of the forest and other "middle- earth" creatures unite to fight the horrendous hideous warriors unleashed by the dark sinister negative power bent on retrieving the RING, and ruling the world. Alternately beautiful and terrifying, this is an exciting adventure saga. Every scene overflows with action as the little hobbits summon up their courage, keep going to "save" the world amid the clash of Wizards. After you see this, you will be eager for the follow-up "Towers" and "Return of the Kings" which complete this triology. It is an imaginative masterpiece.
Rating: 
Summary: Much better then expected
Review: I - like many, viewed the release of LOTR with a bit of aprehension. My concern was simple - there's no way Jackson could create a film that would include the entire story - therefore what was to be written out? However as the film unfolded, I found myself concentrating on his version of the story without being overly concerned about the missing details. Jackson actually did a great job of continuity in the time (too short IMHO) alloted. No "Two Towers" preview was disapointing.
Rating:
Summary: amazing
Review: I absolutely adored this movie. It's wonderful all around, acting, effects, musical score etc etc. ... It really was an incredible movie. And I know bad acting when I see it. Even if you don't care for the story itself, you've got to admit that it's just an amazingly beautiful movie. It takes you into a completely different world.
| 
