Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Box Office
Review: Considered by many to be one of the greatest visual epics of our time, The Lord of the Rings is one of my all-time favorite movies. All of the performances stand out, especially Ian Mckellan as Gandalf and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn; both of these actors throw themselves into their roles. The movie also adds parts that would have been helpful to read in the book, for instance, the fight between Gandalf and Saruman. The Lord of the Rings delivers excellent battle sequences, such as Aragorn vs. the black riders and when the fellowship takes on 50 orcs in the mines of Moria. This movie also features cinematography of New Zealand mountains, rivers, waterfalls, and forests that blow all other movies away. See this movie!
Rating:
Summary: All for a ring...
Review: An ancient Ring thought lost for centuries has been found, and through a strange twist in fate has been given to a small Hobbit named Frodo. When Gandalf discovers the Ring is in fact the One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron, Frodo must make an epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it! However he does not go alone. He is joined by Gandalf, Legolas the elf, Gimli the Dwarf, Aragorn, Boromir and his three Hobbit friends Merry, Pippin and Samwise. Through mountains, snow, darkness, forests, rivers and plains, facing evil and danger at every corner the Fellowship of the Ring must go. Their quest to destroy the One Ring is the only hope for the end of the Dark Lords reign!So much for the tale that sounds like the ones we knew when in kindergarten. The Lord of the Rings is a true modern classic. I can, without the least doubt, call it one of the top 20 movies of all time. This one will keep you glued, and will make you want to watch it over and over again.
Rating: 
Summary: I fail to see it ........
Review: Despite it's accuracy to the original story, I fail to see why this movie is such a big deal. Yes it has a lot of good special effects, and yes it has a pretty decent cast. But it's nothing spectacular by any means. Some people I know are going nuts over this film like it's the greatest film ever, again sorry - I don't see it. I don't recall Frodo being such a weiner in the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Middle Earth Comes Alive
Review: I have read the trilogy several times. It is amazing in its scope. As a quest to destroy the ultimate evil has to be huge. Director Peter Jackson has done a very good job in maintaining that scope in just under three hours. He has treated this classic tale of fantasy with great respect. Hobbitown looks just as described. I vividly remember reading about when the Nazgul Ring Wraiths first appear. I remember trying to visualize how four hobbits could hide under a root without being seen when the black Wraith is standing directly over them, and yet not be seen. I remember reading about the trip through the Mines of Moria, the Wizard Gandalf's battle with the balrock and how the Fellowship broke apart. The movie depicts each with the size and scope of the book. The only other set of movies I know of with this scope is the Star Wars Trilogy. But there, the actors always seem to be having a good time, almost like they were acting in a Saturday Serial. The Good Guys can't die. In contrast, the actors here take their roles much more seriously. They play their roles as if they can die. Without that seriousness, the movie would not work. The cinematography, sound track and special effects are very good. There are no effects done simply for the "WOW that's cool!" value. (See e.g., the candy frog comming to life and jumping out of the train window in Harry Potter and the Sorcer's Stone.) If the effects had been eye candy, they would have detracted from the movie. Instead, the special effects and computer generated characters, backgrounds and images take a back seat to the story. My main gripe with the movie is that it could have been shortened by half an hour if every fifth shot was not of the Ring in Frodo's hand. It becomes very distracting and annoying. This is the ony reason I did not give this movie a 5 star rating. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: This movie is so cool. Based on Tolkien's fantastic fantasy this movie is of happiness, uglyness, and sadness. Frodo Bagggins heroicly volenteers to take the ring to Mordor and the characters in this movie are of great courage. Everybody should have seen this movie it is so awesome.
Rating:
Summary: Phenomenal Fantasy
Review: A short time ago the best serious or high fantasy movie was considered by many to be "Ladyhawke", with a very limited number of other movies even close. Move over "Ladyhawke", "Lord of the Rings" has vaulted to the number one spot in one fell swoop. "Lord of the Rings" seamlessly blends indoor and outdoor sets with special effects to create the most incredibly believable fantasy world ever, setting a new standard of excellence for fantasy movies. The cinematography gets five stars plus. The standard of excellence does not stop there. The actors chosen for the main parts fit their parts perfectly. I was originally concerned about the choice of Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins. Throw my concern away. Elijah Wood is a perfect Frodo Baggins. Ian McKellen IS Gandalf. Viggo Mortensen brings a wonderful dimensionality to Aragorn, a character I had trouble visualizing in the books. I could easily spend thousands of words regarding the choices made for each of the characters, and how well each played their part. Suffice it to say that the acting was among the best of any movie in 2001, if not the best. The short-sighted people at the Academy missed the opportunity to award an epic fantasy rewards for acting excellence. Let's hope they take advantage of the opportunity with the next installment in the series! Special effects: The new state-of-the-art. The flow between special effects and set effects is invisible. Probably the most evident special effect to me was the Balrog, which, while very good, still had somewhat of an animated feel to it. The effect was still good enough that you felt the fear of the characters and for the characters. "Run!" you wanted to yell...okay, I did yell run. The special effects are so good that I want to move to Middle Earth! How well was Tolkien translated? Very, very well. The principal characters are there, and their depth is well-established, with even more potential to increase depth in the next two installments. Admittedly, there are some characters missing. Some of the detail had to be trimmed. However, the movie adds visual detail that enhances the story. The movie remains true to the essence of the story, and I think that the modifications the director and producer made fit well with the translation, in several cases summarizing what took Tolkien dozens of pages to describe in a brief moment, capturing what Tolkien intended the reader to understand. This series of movies will be able to do what all other movies have not, tell a single story of incredible scope in 3 separate 3-hour movies, each released a year part. Only made-for-tv miniseries have previously had the luxury of such extended length. When I reached the end of this movie, my only disappointment was that I had to wait for two years to see it to the end. This movie is a must-have for any serious fan of fantasy, and for fans of Tolkien. Fantasy has for many years taken a backseat to the development of ever-better science fiction movies. With the release of this movie, the opportunity to create movies to match the vision of other great fantasy books can at last be realized.
Rating: 
Summary: Hype and not a lot else
Review: Have you ever read the book? Yes? Ever Do it in one go? No? Thats why this is a bad film! It rambels on and on and on and on some more never really going any where. People say "but the book rambels too" well thats why they change books so much when the turn them into movies - because they are to very difrent medias. If I saw Lord of the Rings with no knoweledge of the books or the other films I would have to say it was over long, badly written and over acted by the many mis-cast actors. I would rather watch the cartoon lord of the rings movie, yes its very difrent from the books, thats because its a more like real Movie and personly when i go the cinama i exspect to see a Film on the screen and not a book. I for one will not be going to see any more of Peter Jackson's LOTR films.
Rating:
Summary: cousinpaco's top action: #9
Review: I'm not a big fan of elves, wizards or dragons. So why is this movie in my top action list? Because of the last fifteen minutes. The climactic battle-royal with the Uber-Orcs is a gut-wrenching melee of blades and arrows. Sean Bean portrays a righteous juggernaut, fighting on even with three monster shafts in his chest. And wait until you see what Viggo Mortensen does to the final opponent... About halfway through the film, you see what Viggo is willing unleash upon Sean in order to protect the ring during their journey. That moment sums up the warrior-code ethic of this fine action movie.
Rating:
Summary: Ringbearer redoux
Review: Great DVD! For hard core fans you will notice small changes in the story line, but that's to be expected! The cinematography is nothing short of gorgeous and I enjoyed the special features. The characters are well developed and consistent with the books. For those not familiar with the epic tale, be warned that this is only 1/3 of the story! But take heart, the producers and directors shot all the film for the final two parts over a two year period and the second installment is due out this winter. If you enjoy fantasy (elves, wizards, etc.) I recomend you purchase the books (boxed set). Remember, this is mythology with all the good and bad that that implies.
Rating:
Summary: typical Hollywood raping of a fine piece of literature
Review: Lord of the Rings was pretty much everything I expected it to be. I don't really expect very much of Hollywood--where very little real art is created and most of what gets produced are overpriced, overproduced, sensationalized, muscle-flexing action extravaganzas for persons of advancing age and limited attention span. If you think that the film will even remotely match the aesthetic of the book, banish that thought the instant you turn on the movie.
Clearly, a certain amount of the spirit of the novel is bound to be lost when it hits the screen. But Peter Jackson might have attempted to create the cinematic version of Tolkien's razor-sharp imagery, through shots of the creatures, that, like Spielberg's Jaws, don't reveal their full bodies and keep you in suspense.
Ian McKellan is a fine British actor, and Elijah one is a decent one, so one would expect there to be some chemistry between Frodo and Gandalf in the film. WRONG. Whenever Gandalf and Frodo seem to develop the beginnings of a tender relationship, one in which they care for each other visibly and we can actually feel the sacred bond uniting them that was so affecting in the novel, Jackson immediately stamps out whatever chemistry there is, through a vulgar horror movie special effect or another tiresome this-is-the-most-important-moment-in-history line.
There are some pretty cinematic views of the Shire, and some comforting exchanges between characters, that attempt to evoke the spirit of the original--of a blind but cozy group of creatures, but a dreadful storm looming in the distance. But he undercuts himself here, too, through many vulgar and gratuitous special effects displays, such as the pointless and unartful firing off of fireworks by Pippin and Merry.
Whatever merit the film has is lost as soon as the Fellowship reaches Brandybuck. From here Fellowship tumbles rapidly downhill. There's probably about five pages of dialogue in the remaining hour and forty five minutes of the film. The plot almost completely vanishes, after nearly two hours of Peter Jackson smothering us with chases that have scant tension or suspense and other idiotic displays of spectacle, mercifully, Fellowship ends.
| 
