Rating: 
Summary: A must for your DVD collection
Review: This is simply a must on your DVD shelf:
- the high quality of picture and audio settings,
- the lots of extras,
- the exceptionally good and loyal transfer from literature to visual, thanks to Mr. Jackson,
- the exceptionally good direction by Mr. Jackson - the whole movie is never bore, and is extremely absorbing,
- finally, the extended version is also not a little bit over-long, it just gives you to enjoy this legend in a much more complete sense
Rating:
Summary: ahhhhhhhhh
Review: I'm sorry...........I'm hopelessly obsessed with LOTR.......I've seen the first two at least thirteen times (FOTR more than that) but ROTK only five. I just love these moviiieessss aaaaaaaghhhhh..........matrix is dumb!!!!!
this was a weird review. I apologize.
Rating:
Summary: LOVE IT A MUST SEEEEEEEE Seriously
Review: I really did not want to see this movie, I was like no it's stupid and I would never want to watch it ever. But my sister finally got me to watch it, and IT WAS AMAZING. I wanted to watch it again and again. I then saw the second one and Loved it even more. I now own both of them and I have watched it at least 100 times. I can't wait for the Return Of The King to come out on dvd. May 25th. I AM HUGE FAN. I wanna have a second breakfast too:)
Rating: 
Summary: Clearly one of the most overrated movies of our generation
Review: Great respect for Jackson for undertaking this but lets face it, this movie lacks an editor and is prone to long, agonizingly boring spurts. Same goes for the rest in the trilogy as well.
Rating:
Summary: I admired it more than I liked it
Review: First of all, I did my best to separate the film from the book. As seemingly inexorable as J.R.R. Tolkien may be from this story, the book and the film are not one and the same, and so there's no sense in juxtaposing the two. Therefore, how true the storyline of the film is to the book is irrelevant. (Although I wondered throughout if Tolkien's Frodo was as much a sniveling, ineffectual wimp and the Frodo on the screen.)I have a deep admiration for Peter Jackson's work and commitment to this film. It certainly is gorgeous to look at, it moves at a brisk pace (178 minutes didn't seem so long after all), the fight scenes are dizzying and dazzling, and the New Zealand landscapes shimmer. But I think I admire the film a lot more than I actually like it. Take away the effects and the quaint medieval costumes and you have a pretty basic mix of a Western and a road movie - all the good guys ride the white horses, the bad guys wear black, the posse ambles west and meets with some adventures along the way. Tolkien didn't invent those plotlines (I think Homer may have beat him to it). If you take away all of the chases, the sets, and the battles, you're also left with a pretty thin script centered on a less-than compelling main character (see previous paragraph). And I'm not sure I'll ever fully accept this herky-jerky computer animation. It's hard to complain about something being unrealistic in a film so fantastic in nature, but those moments of the film dominated by animation look ridiculous. All that being said, LOTR is good fun, with a spirited cast and some nifty set pieces. It would have been easy for this story to spin wildly out of control, but Jackson shows his skills as a director time and time again, reining in the film long enough for the audience (and the actors) to catch our collective breath.
Rating:
Summary: The Average Joes out there are right
Review: I don't usually follow common opinion, but along with about 80% of the country, I flat out like LOTR a lot. I mean, face it, what are these put-downers complaining about. Sure it's not like the books, but the books are full of wimsy and melodrama that just can't be put onscreen. The way Peter Jackson converted the cheery tale of an adventurous hobbit into a swashbuckling thriller, is perfectly appropriate, (would you Tolkien-lovers rather he just didn't make the movies at all?). As for the people who just don't like LOTR, what they say is their opinion. As for me, I think that if you don't like this movie, then thats okay, it's your tastes. And if you thought these movies are stupid, then I wouldn't say you're stupid, just small-minded. Your imagination has been killed by Soap operas and reality shows, go to the library and check out an adventure story, or rent some out-there movie like Star Wars or something. And if you think this movie was boring then I definately think you are stupid, stop smoking weed, it destroys your perception of what completely awesome and what isn't
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings is so cool
Review: This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. It has special affects and great picture. My favorite charcter was Legolas he is so cute. I like the hobbits hairy feet. Gimli is cool and funny. I like the giant squid and the fire monster that almost killed Gandalf
Rating: 
Summary: Review
Review: Review for the film 'Lord of the rings'.
So. This film is too overrated, and of course it holds many signs of weakness as its previous series. It doesn't led me to elation: not satisfying. While I was watching the movie I did not find my excitement.
The battles are primitive and plain, they're not wrought. Boring: you know who will win the battle. The scrimmages: I can't make any sense of the too fast-flashing picture ; annoying jumbleness; farfretched, too loud, and frequent war-cries.
The music (annoyement):confused, alike, inglorious, infirmly structured, talentless.
The "actors": They're talentless too, the weak-point of the film is the frequent smiles. I hate them. Too bad, too slipslop. The telescreen almost drains. Tears? The same. And the looks, gazes... oh. The close camera zoom at the faces, at the gesticulations are (also) too frequent.
Another weak-point: the film's dickey structure is primarly based on the beatiful landscapes, and at the medieval clothes.
The landscapes and the clothes does not make the director a genius. Genius, blah! A fourth-rate director, fourth-rate actors. Too thick, intricate: yes, it is stereotyped.
Screen-play? Nothing at all. A total waste of time. Meaningless waste of money.
Check out better movies. But not a movie like this one.
Rating:
Summary: A pox on New Line
Review: For a while this movie bothered me, but then I remembered that Film interpretations of books are just that, interpretations. Peter Jackson was not required to keep all of the original storyline in his film trilogy, nor was the studio required to respect Tolkien's works as they marketed it to the masses as a new trend. Yes, trend; what used to be a cult was suddenly known to every idiot who was able to put forth the money to enter the theatre or watch it on television. What used to only be available to those who took the time to discover it, read it and appreciate it is now available in trend-form. Okay, so it still bothers me, maybe I just thought that Middle Earth deserved to be spared the whole cult-goes-mainstream process and stay as an exclusive subculture made up of those who appreciate the art of Tolkien's work rather than being stripped of everything that was cult-like about it. Maybe this is more of a rant than a review, but I cant help it.
Rating:
Summary: legendary
Review: people like eric miller are so ignorant of the passion and dedication it takes to take this epic story by j.r. tolkien and make it in to a film....a trilogy. peter jackson created the suspense, drama, emotion, and action that i'm sure tolkien had in mind when he wrote lord of the rings. not to mention the creatures, characters, and scenery. i mean when i read the books, it's nice to be able to put a face on the characters. most of the time people are discouraged reading a novel and then watching the movie based off the novel. the acting could not have been better. each character played their role as if they've been in their character their whole lives. everything about this movie is genious. sound track goes along perfectly. miller, it would be interesting to know if you talk this much crap to peoples' faces. i thought not, b@tch
|
