Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Rings Movie is faithful to the writer Tolkein
Review: It is my humble opinion that this movie should be considered utterly outstanding (5*). Why? Because the actors/actresses portrayed their characters flawlessly and with much enthusiasm. One could not help but be transported into the world of Middle Earth created by the renowned author J.R.R. Tolkein. I was amazed that the director(s), producer(s), and all involved managed to create a film that really was true to Tolkein. A marvel. The settings were exactly as described in the books. I plan to see all forthcoming sequels. No one should miss this.
Rating:
Summary: An amazing rendition of this incredible tale.
Review: It is not saying enough to say that I have been a fan since my first reading of the books in the early seventies as a teenager. I have gone through three sets of books, which fell apart from use, and am on my 4th. I have longed since the beginning to see a movie made that would do the books justice. And it has been done to a standard I had never expected. I am not a compulsive person, nor a fanatic about anything, but Middle Earth has been in my heart for all of my 43 years... the longing for a life filled with important deeds, with victory over evil, with magic, with honor and passion, with beauty and meaning... I have watched the FOTR Theatrical version, which I love, about 15 times now. I just received the extended version of the Fellowship tonight, and watched it for the first time. Overall I feel the additions do make it a better version, but I am ambivalent about a couple of the extra scenes... some I feel add depth, such as the extra scenes with Borimer, and the giving of the gifts by Lady Galadriele, but some I do not feel add anything to the feel and flow of the movie even though they are truer to the books... in my opinion they could have been left on the cutting room floor. I did not feel this way about the extended version of TTT in which I felt that every added scene added value, but that's ok. I am very glad I have it and I think you will be too. These are treasures, no matter which version you get and I would say that this version is worth getting. The only thing I don't like is that I can't seem to find a full screen version of the extended editions! :) If they ever come out I'll have every version out there!
Rating:
Summary: amazing
Review: It is obviously not as good as the book, but, (when not compared to the book) it is one of the greatest films ever made.Trust me: Arwen's part is not as big as it is made out to be. Probably the smallest part in the movie.
Rating:
Summary: our expanding view of the world tolkien created
Review: it is only the begining to something impossible to fully understand and that is the ever changing lord of the rings series evn today we are only starting to understand tolkiens master piece. this motion picture involves the contents of the first lord of the rings book. this is a must see for all even if you are not a fan of the lord of the rings. i have much praise for peter jackson the director of this movie.
Rating:
Summary: To the man with the five and eight year olds
Review: It is rated PG-13, so if it scares em out of the room, why are you complaining? It is little kids that are ruining movies for the rest of us. Bah I say!
Rating: 
Summary: This movie stinks
Review: It made me so mad I wanted to cry. What was wrong with the book anyway! It's a really old book, plus it's epic! So I think it deserves a little respect! The movie completly let the book down. If you really want to get into to lord of the rings read the book! The movie isn't worth it!
Rating: 
Summary: response to Mr. richard d. barszcz's review
Review: It never ceases to amaze me. The wide range of opinions on any given bit of media. The Power of Perception™ is a mind blowing thing. Of course, I would never take issue with anyone's opinion if they simply stated it and left it there. However, my liking for this production apparently entitles me to the description of a member of "a brain dead generation".
This gentleman, Mr. Barszcz, does not care for the acting in this film (my spin on his words will remain gentle). I heartily disagree. Mr. McKellan gives an incredibly vivid performance. His interpretation of a character which is at once a target due to its own life in the imagination of a million rabid fans is accepted easily because of its focus and commitment and color. Mr. Wood gives us a performance which could have so easily slid into a pit of standard acting traps of singular level and dull focus. His own performance shows a slow move in character from that of childlike innocence to reluctant experience with no trace of cliche. Vito Morgensen, I am now convinced, is one of the most underrated contemporary actors in film and on stage. Not to mention, we get a whole host of relative unknowns who provided their audience with charming and three dimensional characterizations. Come to think on it, the schmarmey pitfalls are, for the most part, completely avoided by the entire cast. In fact, my first impression of this film was this: how did they manage all of this with pretty much NO serious weak link in the acting?
While I will say this was not the best film I have ever seen, it is absolutely one of the most impressive. Not just for what it is, but for what it avoided being- an overwrought effect fest with criminal writing and hack performances (ala another popular sci fi film series). The effects in Fellowship were spectacular- but not overbearing. They served to create the world of Middle Earth in a way that was believable and that avoided being the focus for the entire film. This film was not ABOUT effects.
Hey. How 'bout that. I liked the film. I am neither stupid nor worthy of pity. I have extensive experience with theater and film (performance and study) and consider myself to be sharply critical. I was prepared to loathe this film. As far as I was concerned, its very existence had already stacked the cards against it. I was most pleasantly surprised. I'll give the credit where it is due and dispense with insulting those who disliked it.
Mr. Barszcz: feel free to be critical of the film. It is your right. It shows arrogance and an overwhelming "superiority", however, to critique those who would enjoy this piece of entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: LotR- Best Movie of the Year!
Review: It really should have won Movie of the Year. Anyone who's seen it knows that this is true. But LotR is more than a great movie. It's an adventure, a story that makes you believe that you're actually there. It's great in the aspect that it sticks to the story line, except for the lack of Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel, of course, but other than that it's almost exact. Peter Jackson did a magnificent job of directing, Elijah Wood looks as though he was born a hobbit! Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies were perfect as Legolas and Gimli. Not to mention Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd as Sam, Merry, and Pip! Pip's famous line "So, where are we going?" was perfectly done! But the ones who bring it all together, of course, are Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn and Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf. Wonderful work by everyone. And did you notice... the balrog DIDN'T have wings...
Rating:
Summary: Definitely the best movie of 2001
Review: It really {blew} that this movie did not win best picture at the Oscars but for all true movie buffs out there, you'd know as much as I do that The Lord Of The Rings was definitely THE BEST MOVIE OF 2001. Though most of the movie used digital imagery, the actors themselves provided the depth and soul for the movie, thus really standing it out amongst other fantasy movies made in the past. Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee were simply fabulous as the good and evil wizards. Elijah Wood was adorable as the confused Hobbit out to save the world. All in all, Peter Jackson's vision brought back the good old days of film making where movies were simply about the movies and not about making money and big stars.
Rating:
Summary: Shameless
Review: It saddens me that such a classic could be butchered so badly. That's not to say that the special effects weren't impressive, but three hours of scenery just doesn't cut it. Even then, the effects fall short because the hobbits change height several times, first coming up to people's waists, then their shoulders. Regarding the storyline, the movie portrays Gandalf as a parnoid old man, Aragorn as a shamed derelict, Boromir as an evil sissy, Sauron as a mythical monster...etc. They changed key scenes, but not the quotes they use from the book, which is contradicting. I guess what I'm getting at is, if you have read and truly enjoyed the books, don't waste your time or money on the movie for it will only make you mad.
|
