Rating: 
Summary: Minor Tolkien Heresy... (BEWARE SPOILERS)
Review: Picture this. It's Christmas Eve, 1978. A teenage Tolkien addict (who had already read the books some ten times) walked out of a movie theater (into a snowstorm) after seeing Ralph Bakshi's animated Lord of the Rings movie and said, "Well, that wasn't quite as bad as I feared...." Fast forward 23 years. It's Christmas Eve, 2001. A thirty-something Tolkien addict (who has by now read the books 25+ times) walked out of a movie theater (into a snowstorm) after seeing Peter Jackson's live-action Lord of the Rings movie and said, "Is there another showing today?" Yes, after three hours of sitting on my butt in a theater, I was ready (after a short bathroom break) to do it again right away. And I had expected to be disappointed, too.It's that good. As Roger Ebert rightfully pointed out, as an adaptation of one of the best-loved novels of all time, Jackson's film falls woefully short in a number of ways. As the latest attempt to bring an entertaining, exciting addition to the Swords and Sorcery genre, it succeeds brilliantly. Last year's Dungeons and Dragons movie brought tears to my eyes. Tears of anguish that I had wasted my hard-earned dollars. Lord of the Rings also brought tears to my eyes (although I guess it's only fair to admit that the books do that, too). (SPOILER ALERT) I was only lukewarm on Elijah Wood as Frodo for 2 1/2 hours, until the scene in which he admits that -- after trying to go off without his companions -- he's glad that Sam caught him. The on-screen devotion and magnetism between the two hobbits is very moving. Likewise with Sean Bean's attempt to save the hobbits from the orcs. (END OF SPOILER) So why did I title my review Minor Tolkien Heresy? Because Peter Jackson wisely decided that even a three hour film was insufficient to do justice to Tolkien's masterpiece (rumor has it that his original cut was 4 hrs and 45 minutes long). Instead, he lifted characters, locations, story-line, and above all, the ESSENCE of Tolkien's work out of the books and used them to make a superbly-paced, highly-entertaining piece of cinema. The major themes of Tolkien's work come across strongly. All of his changes and deletions make perfect cinematic sense, and a couple of them actually improve (wow, that borders on a MAJOR Tolkien heresy) the story. (SPOILER ALERT) After all, in the books, why does Gandalf go to the Pinnacle of Orthanc? Because Saruman is the chief of his Order? Perhaps. Maybe Saruman tricked or magically held him there. But a movie audience never would have bought it (the much truer adaptation of this sequence in the 1978 animated version just doesn't work). Jackson's interpretation is much better. You know exactly why Gandalf ends up atop the tower. And Tolkien doesn't say EXACTLY how it happened, so why not this way? (END of SPOILER) It's technical merits are many: the acting is brilliant, the cinematography breathtaking, the special effects awesome, and the costumes and sets are wonderfully imaginative (not always the way I pictured it, but it's the filmmaker who is showing me his vision, not bringing my vision to life). I'll spare you any more rambling. To sum up: even if you're a Tolkien purist, see the movie. It's so good, the differences from the book probably won't bother you (they sure didn't bother me). If you have any interest at all in the Fantasy genre of films, SEE THIS MOVIE. Otherwise, you'll be missing the best fantasy film ever. One last note: I saw the movie with my 68-year-old mother, not with my 5-year-old son. There was a good reason for this! Leave kids under ten at home.
Rating: 
Summary: this movie is apallingly bad
Review: Please, to anyone who hasn't yet wasted a good three and a half hours of their life on this drivel, do yourself a favor, use the time to go for a walk, or wax your back, or shop for vintage clown paintings. Trust me, do not sentence yourself to sitting through this utterly godforsaken film unless you have a large supply of ritalin on hand.
Rating:
Summary: A most wonderful Masterpiece!
Review: Pop the DVD in your player, unplug your phone. Sit back, and let the movie change your life in ways you never imagined.
Peter Jackson has done it!
Excellent storyline which is true to the books. It'll keep you spellbound for 3 hours. I cannot say enough about this movie, but one word does it justic. Astonishing!!!!!!!!!!
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: A gargantuan filmmaking achievement
Review: Prior to this film, Director Peter Jackson was obscure even among the anonymous wannabes of the film industry. His resume consisted of a half a dozen indy films in the horror and comedy genres. If you took the budgets of all his prior films together, they wouldn't equal his salary for this franchise. He now owns the second highest grossing film in history. Talk about a Cinderella story! This film was somewhat of a personal obsession for Jackson. It took eight years from inception to completion. He originally pitched the idea to Miramax who agreed to take it on and then balked at the cost of a two movie deal and backed out. Desperate to save the project, he presented it to New Line Cinema and convinced them that if he filmed in New Zealand, used his own effects company and filmed all three movies back to back, he could make three films for less than the cost of two. They bought the project and gave him a record $270 Million budget for the three. He completed the filming for all three films in 16 months of continual shooting, a record. Jackson's task was daunting. He wanted to create a film with mass appeal that was true to the classic books. Considering the devoted following of Tolkien's trilogy, their preoccupation with the smallest trivia and the sheer volume of the works, this was an almost impossible task. Jackson decided to lean toward the action/adventure elements, while paying homage to aficionados with scenes that compressed the intricacies of the various cultures and contained allusions to various pieces of trivia that only devotees of the books would understand. The result is a terrific film that doesn't leave the books out of the screenplay. The transformation of the real world into the fantasy world is nothing short of fantastic. The combination of makeup, set decoration, costumes, New Zealand locations and special effects sets a new standard for this or any genre. The attention to detail is astounding from the elf ears to the hobbit toes. The ensemble cast does a fine job without any need for a superstar. Elijah Wood is lovable and believable as the dauntless Frodo. Wood has the perfect combination of childlike exuberance and steely resolve to play the ring bearer. Ian McClellan, who is a big ring fan himself, is perfectly cast as Gandalf. With almost 40 years in TV and films, McKellen is one of the veterans of the cast. He is a powerful dramatic actor and he renders Gandalf with great range. He is formidable and commanding in some scenes, and tender and paternal in the scenes with Frodo. Along with Christopher Lee (55 years in film) the battle of the elders is given enormous dramatic power. Viggo Mortensen is awesome as Aragon. Mortensen demanded to do all his own stunts and trained exhaustively at swordsmanship and other combat skills to make his fight scenes as realistic as possible. In one scene he had a tooth knocked out and after a quick trip to the dentist he was back on the set later that day. Ian Holm is wonderful as Bilbo Baggins. Holm captures the ageless hobbit with a youthful enthusiasm that belies his advanced age. This film is really more the first episode of a miniseries than a film that stands alone. By the end it is clear that we haven't yet reached the middle, even if you never read the books. Still, at three hours, it never drags. It is a tremendous filmmaking achievement that redefines the fantasy genre and sets production standards that will be difficult to equal. It is fabulously entertaining for audiences of all ages. One cannot see this film and not be eager for the next episode to be released. I rated it a 10/10. It is motion picture history in the making.
Rating:
Summary: Review of DVD contents
Review: Probably the best DVD out there in terms of content. The extended/new scenes were added seamlessly & actually provide more depth to the movie itself. In short, the new scenes made sense or even clarified certain things for me. In contrast, I remember watching the unnecessary & tedious extension of the podrace scene in The Phantom Menace DVD & asking myself why it was even put back. Unfortunately for us without a multi-disc DVD player, the movie has been split into 2 discs. However, that is a minor inconvenience compared to what you get:
- 4 different running commentaries to choose from to get better understanding on the making of the film (my personal favorite is the cast members---pretty entertaining).
- Improved audio & video quality compared to the Theatrical Release DVD --- OK, I admit that I can't really tell the difference. But according to some DVD technical reviewers, this version uses less compression & offers more enhanced audio tracks, which translates to better visual & auditory experience. Probably people with expensive audio/video equipment will notice it. Two extra discs hold all the documentaries & behind-the-scenes exploration, and all are very interesting if you have an ounce of interest in Tolkien the author, how the book came about, how the book was translated into the movie by Peter Jackson & his team, and getting to know the actors who were selected for the roles. It is actually in those 2-disc extras that will make you appreciate how much work & care they put into this film. The quality of workmanship is unbelievable from the costume to the props & sets. Movie-wise, I think this is a good interpretation of the book. Purists will dislike it because it does not follow the book to the letter: A line attributed to Treebeard is now voiced by Galadriel; 40-year old Frodo is acted out by a (then) 18-year old actor; the absence of Tom Bombadil; etc. It should be understood that books & movies are different forms of media, and it's virtually impossible to follow every single detail of the book without slowing down the movie. How many LOTR readers have actually managed to read the book for the first time within a day & able to completely digest it? So how can a 3-hour movie be able to squeeze in all the nuances of the book? You'll probably need 10 hours! And will a studio in their right mind allow that? Of course not! It is not commercially viable that way. If you want to stay 100% faithful to each & every detail of the book, you will need to produce a TV-mini series. Unfortunately, I do not think such a medium will be given a big enough budget to afford good actors, crew, & production effects equal to those people who worked on this movie. You'll probably get a lousy Lord of the Rings that way. And for those ultra-purists who think that LOTR should probably never had been made into a film, I beg you to stop being selfish. I never read any Tolkien books before I saw the movie even though I like the epic-fantasy genre---I just never had the time nor the motivation. After watching the movie, I've read & appreciated The Hobbit, the whole trilogy of the Lord of the rings, and now will start reading The Silmarillion.
Rating:
Summary: really really really really good
Review: probably the best movie i have seen. infact i wouldnt mind it to have been longer since it was special edition. the editing wasent as sharp as the original but the xtra scenes really made up for it.
infact the only thing i hate about the movie is that freaking aragorn doesnt take narsil and reforge it inot...Anduril!
fark
oh well, was good enough. also i didnt agree with expanding Arwens story. i mean its alright, but it might have been better to leave her story subtle, like the book. especially in ttt aragorn becomes unfaithful which is gay.
hella good movie though
enjoy
Rating:
Summary: THE LORD OF THE RING:THE FOLLOWSHIP OF THE RING
Review: Probably the most fantastic fantasy story ever written has been made into a film for the big screen and now it's being brought to us on video to enjoy in the home. This amazing film is the first in a triogly and was a box office smash.With beautiful scenary, wonderful props,magnifacent duels,horrific battles, heart warming friendships,tear jerking moments,laugh out loud funny and edge of your seat adventure it really is a film for everyone and is to be missed at your own peril.No other fantasy film has reached out to people and involved them in the story and draged them back to the cinama time and time again.
This really is the best film EVER MADE !...
Rating:
Summary: Awesome spectacle!
Review: Purists be damned. Especially those who can't (cough) correctly spell the names of the characters (cough). This was a fantastic movie and as true to the book as any movie is likely to be. I thought it was wonderful, and I would see it again. I'm definitely getting the DVD when it comes out.
Rating: 
Summary: A visual delight.....
Review: Putting faces on the characters about which I have read over and over again was a revelation; giving substance and form to buildings and places that I and millions have often imagined took courage and imagination beyond that which I possess. I gladly admit that the film's creators gave some a better face than I had fancied and made places more wonderful or more horrible than I had dreamed, and fittingly so. Visually, the movie was a great success to me...but... Although intellectually I know not every incident in the novel can possibly be included in a screenplay, and not every detail can remain true to the original manuscript, some omissions and liberties taken greatly disappointed me. For instance, I can understand not actually introducing Farmer Maggot and his family. The plot rolled along quite smoothly without them. The absence of Tom Bombadill and the hobbits' plight on the Barrow Downs on the way to Rivendell left a great hole in the young hobbits education, and omitted the device by which each is armed with a weapon capable of contesting the evil they will eventually encounter, in this movie and in the following entries. Don't get me started on transforming Arwen into a warrior and substituting her for the elf-lord Glorfindel just so she would have a bigger part in the first movie. I was so annoyed by this outrageous change of personality and character, I didn't enjoy the first viewing. Word(s)of advice to the Tolkien fan: Don't overexpect. Just watch and enjoy the feast for the eyes. Don't let the few flaws in character and plot lessen the impact of the amazing "Last Battle" sequence when Isildur takes the one ring, or the incredible visualizations of Hobbiton, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Khazad-dum, and Isengard.
| 
