Rating: 
Summary: Exactly What Tolkien Envisioned
Review: It's always a touchy subject when you're adapting a popular story for film, especially one with the following of this epic trilogy. By the time this movie finally hit the theatres, it was almost impossible to live up to the hype it had generated over the previous months (does Star Wars, Episode I, ring a bell?).I've lost track of how many times I read Tolkien's trilogy while growing up. The amazing thing about this movie is that it is almost exactly as I pictured Middle Earth in my mind and I can't imagine it's far from what Tolkien himself envisioned. Director Peter Jackson stays very true to the story while creating a movie that captures your attention and your imagination and holds them for almost three hours. The visuals in the movie are stunning, but not at the expense of character and plot development. This movie deserved more than the four Oscars it received and should be considered one of the best fantasy films of all time. All I want for Christmas is my Two Towers movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Snore...
Review: I went to the theater, expecting a big, climatic action packed movie all the way through. Thats not what I got. I got a long, confusing, corny movie that was boring the whole way through, except for a few certain parts. I'm sure if I actually wanted to understand the story, I could, but I don't want to have to use 100% of my brain power on a weekend, not in school, to understand a movie. Oh yea, and this is WAY to long. It's not as long as Titantic, but this movie is a solid 3 hours 15 minutes long! Don't take the kids with you. Or maybe they can just fall asleep in the theater. See, there is lots of fighting and cool parts of the movie, but half the time, you don't even know why their fighting. But, the fight scenes are awesome. Oh yea, and after the 3 hours 15 minutes, the movie isn't over. The sequel is a direct sequel that takes place right after the ending of the first. If you like the books, you'll drool over this and want to see it over and over. If not, and your just a casual movie-goer, skip it.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings
Review: This movie had it all!! It fairly closely followed the novel without dragging on as some lenthy stories tend to do. The cinematography was awe-inspiring and truly took digital imaging to its limits. Highly, highly recommend this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Fellowship of the Ring
Review: Phenomenal movie. I'm probably the best & worst person to give an opinion, since I've read the triology [of which this is the first part] 5 or more times. I'm biased, yet I expected a lot. This movie delivered! The scenes in the movie made me feel exactly like I did when I read the book. Though the characters were not exactly as I pictured them, they were very close. The setting: incredible! The scenes seemed to be pulled right out of my imagination. Even for those that didn't read the novel, this movie is a mastery of fantasy & special effects. If possible, read the book: either before [suggested] or after seeing the movie. But see this movie. Peter Jacob did an amazing job translating an epic book into an epic movie. Tolkien would have been proud!
Rating:
Summary: Caught my imagination off guard!
Review: I absolutely loved this movie! It was beautiful to the last detail. There were only two things that were missed that I would have liked to see: The scene where Galadriel gives the gifts to the Fellowship (the cloaks and pins are shown, but we never know how they got them. it does show the flask of light for Frodo, but that's all. I felt this scene was important and shouldn't have been cut. From what I can tell, it was shot, and then cut afterwards. Probably dealing with the length of the film.) The other scene was the one with Tom Bombadil... this was one of my favorite parts of the book and I was sad to see it wasn't included!
Other than that, the movie was wonderful. I sat on the edge of my seat with my fists clenched tight the entire time, even though I knew how it would end. The funniest was the part where Bilbo wants the ring back and he bars his teeth at Frodo... the entire movie theatre gasped and some even screamed! it was wonderful to see the reaction. I thought the Dark Riders were Soooooo scary. Much scarier than even my most vivid imaginings! In short, it was wonderful, and I will buy it for sure!
Rating:
Summary: The Ring To Rule Them All!
Review: The LOrd Of the Rings Is the best movie ever. First Frodo is the best looking hobbit ever with the curage to fill a human.
It Keeps you on your seat through out the whole movie, guessing what will happen next.
Its exciting,Pippin(Billy) is funny, he'll make you laugh out loud!
Rating:
Summary: Best Adaptation Ever
Review: Confession - I am modern man and, as such, am frequently very representative of my generation - skeptical and dismissive, irreverent and difficult to impress. In the past, I would be hard pressed to admit satisfaction without finding some grievance with anything, let alone a Hollywood blockbuster. But here's the deal - Peter Jackson's Fellowship of The Ring is as perfect as the Hollywood adventure gets. I would defend any and all of the changes that were made in adapting Tolkien's opus in a blood fight against any JRRT geek who shall step forward. Fellowship - this first part of the trilogy, more than Towers and ROTK, begs for contraction... it is longest in the number of pages and approximately 18 years falls between the beginning and the end. I've heard complaints at the lack of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights and I have to tell you that the Bombadil section of the story is the most easily omitted, mainly because he dominates the one chapter or so and then never comes up again. The main point of Bombadil is the insertion of some more singing and to dish out magic weaponry. This really isn't worth ten minutes of screen time. What I love about this movie is the speed and sense of urgency that moves things and, yes, the result is that a lot of moments of the book get cut. This movie has kept the focus solely on the movement of the ring to mount doom. This is the best way to do adventure on screen - make sure that the characters have major (life or death) objectives that they continue to pursue. Some express that the movie omitted the sense that the fellowship had a decision to make over whether to go to Mordor or Gondor. It was not an omission; something that they accidentally forget... it was a change and a damned good one. I love the suggestion that the ring is going to Mordor - period. This is the doubtless objective that drives the film that makes it move well. If there was a lot of hesitation and the sense that they were just going south and making the decision later then we're left with aimless location driven drivel (Phantom Menace anyone?). There's been disdain for the fact that Frodo tells Aragorn he's going by himself to Mordor and Aragorn accepts it. I cannot put into words how genius I think this move is, primarily because in the book Aragorn figures it out quickly anyway and here we're spared a boring scene where they all stand around scratching their heads. Secondly, I always felt it was peculiar that Aragorn (in the novel) wants to protect Frodo and yet when he figures out that Frodo went off and that Boromir tried to take the ring (possibly scaring him off) that he does not go after him. It seems like cowardice because he himself proposed the idea that he go to Mordor with Frodo and Sam and that the others go to Gondor. In the film, Frodo gets to look him in the eyes and Aragorn knows that he is going off for the right reasons. Then there's those that gripe about the extended role of Arwen, probably feeling that it's been Hollywooded up by adding more of 'the girl' and 'romance'. But isn't it queer that Aragorn marries Arwen, who does so little. If it happens exactly as the book, the audience will end up liking Eowyn more as a stronger character. Not that Aragorn has to love the stronger character, it's just that by showing more of what George Costanza would call 'relationship Aragorn' - Aragorn out of the context of the quest or war, it doesn't just add more Arwen, it adds dimension to the future king - adds humanity, which honestly isn't in the book. At least one fan review says something to the extent that many fans take great offense to the fact that Glorfindel was eliminated. What they don't understand is that in a movie it can be hard to throw in extra characters with extra names mainly because the names are frequently missed (their not written down for you to see every few lines after all). Since Glorfindel doesn't ever come up again, why burden an audience that's already taking in a lot of info with his presence? I feel that the reason some fans are so attached to these small characters (Glorfindel, Bombadil, Lobelia, Lotho) is because there's something lacking in some of the power players in the books. My examples are Aragorn, Saruman and to a lesser degree Gandalf. Tolkien creates Aragorn and Gandalf as almost arrogant know it alls and though he often says that they show mercy or compassion or love or kindness, he doesn't show them do it (this, by the way, is a frequent symptom of fantasy - and other genre type - writing). The film has taken bold moves to flesh out these characters and show them as Tolkien meant for them to be. Saruman in the trilogy is an almost sniveling and pathetic villain. His power and the power of his voice are stated repeatedly but the few times he shows up there is a real weakness. The film has vastly improved on his strength and created a Saruman that far exceeds my imagination in venom and charisma. In summary, I think the great characterization of major players is well worth the expense of the likes of Glorfindel and Bombadil. Now, it may seem that I am bashing Tolkien in my defense of the movie but... well maybe I am and I'm sorry. It's not that I'm a JRRT detractor or don't love his works. It's just that I have experienced lots of different fiction and seen it adapted and frequently characters and dramatics are slighted in a condensed form. Here, that is not the case at all. Not that LOTR is not a staggeringly fantastical work of imaginative power, it's just that... well, Faulkner it ain't.
Rating:
Summary: LOR is the best fantasy ever made
Review: I'm probably prejudiced because I have always loved Tolkein's novels, and I'm even going to the college that he graduated from next year. Anyway, this was the best movie that I have seen in a very long time. Nothing compares to the action and adventure of this great epic. If only the producers hadn't left out some parts of the story..... Might I also suggest that you read the books, including The Hobbit, before you see the movie because it's a proven fact that books are always better than the movies based upon them, although the director of LOR did stick to most of the book and did not leave out enough to ruin the story.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of action, good comaraderie, but where's the music? ...
Review: What struck me throughout watching the movie was - Wow there's a lot of action! Having read the book long ago, I simply didn't remember that much, but it was there! In fact, there was so much action, and so many people in the story, that some viewers unfamiliar with the books might get lost. Therefore, if you are new to the story, sit on the edge of your seat, and pay close attention. The one theme in the film that I doubt any will miss is ~ One ring to rule them all ~ a theme repeated so many times, that, as one who had read the books a number of times, I started becoming irritated by its repetition. But I controlled my irritation when I thought to myself, Okay, those who have not read the books might lose sight of this crucial and overriding theme. So I let go, and kept enjoying the movie! As a long-ago reader of the book, I was disappointed that Tolkien's wonderful songs and poetry were all but missing. As a youth, I read the Lord of the Rings "trilogy" a number of times. One of the main things that kept me reading - since there was an overwhelming amount of detail in places - were the songs, the Elven/Elvish poetry, and the beauty of the landscapes and the people. The movie - The Fellowship of the Ring - does indeed capture much of the beautiful landscape visually, but gives very little space to the wonderful songs and poems that Tolkien wrote. (The movie's own music isn't bad, but mostly too slow for my taste, with very little that was memorable.) All in all, I'm glad they released this movie, the first of three planned (six movies might have been better!), and I have bought both DVDs, the regular release and the extended version. The extended version is better for those who read the books. But it makes the movie even longer. If you complain when movies get long, either take an intermission part way into the movie, or watch the shorter version! (If you consider yourself a true fan already, don't get mad at that advice! I'm trying to win the uninitiated. Tolkien fans will probably want to watch the extended version. But by this time, I'd guess almost all the Tolkien fans have at least seen the theatrical release!) I appreciated this movie FAR more than the ANIMATED versions released many years ago, which as an adult I hated: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Return of the King. I recently watched all of these animated version, but they weren't "real" enough to one who had read the books multiple times. The animated versions might be fine for very young kids, but adults and older children will most likely want to watch the movie version that is not animated. In this version of The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, animation is, gladly, subdued, and mostly appropriate. TO SUM UP: This is one of the best fantasy-genre films to date, NOT corny as some are. The film is based on serious literature from the "fantasy" genre, and is a serious adaptation. But the feeling of the movie is "darker" or heavier in my memory than the book felt, at least, in the book, The Fellowship of the Ring. Well acted. Well directed. Some beautiful visuals. Music, slow and haunting. A very good film overall. Ah, but for a portal to a REAL Middle Earth! ****1/2 - Enjoy! Stephen A. DeVore. Web sites: New Line Cinema's Official The Lord of the Rings Web site. And many Tolkien-fan sites. (Amazon doesn't allow links in user reviews, or I'd provide them. Sorry. Enjoy!) SIDEBARS. SIDEBARS. SIDEBARS.
- For those who want more specific information! FAITHFUL-TO-THE BOOK SIDEBAR: Is the movie faithful to the books? For any really lengthy book, most movies cannot hope to be. But it has been more than 20 years since I read this! For the most part, it seemed faithful to me. But even at 178 minutes (wow), the movie is still by far shorter than the book. There were some notable parts that were left out, of course.
For example, where they met the enigmatic Tom Bombadil and his wife comes to mind. And I already mentioned the songs and poetry. ANIMATION SIDEBAR:
The animation for the scene where the Elf Queen Galadriel was tempted with "the one ring" could have been done better; and the feeling of the scene could have felt more real. TECHNICAL SIDEBAR:
One small audio glitch in the theater, which I did not notice in the DVD, was a scene with the Elf Elrond. It seems some background audio was missing, for there was a strange silence that caught my audio-engineering ear! VIOLENCE AND OCCULT SIDEBARS: Violence? Yes, there are many battles. But though these battles are numerous, they are not overly gratuitous, or overly graphic (to my mind). It's simply part of the story. There is thankfully little gore. Occult? For those concerned about the wizardry -
Compared to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone or Chamber of Secrets, the wizardry in this film feels far more serious and realistic, so to speak, while in Harry Potter it feels silly and childish. For some reason, there are far stronger reactions from parents and Conservatives regarding the Harry Potter films than there are toward the Tolkien works. Maybe it's because the Potter films appeal to younger audiences. Maybe it's because wizardry and witchcraft are hugely prominent in the Potter films. There IS wizardry in this film, however. And the overall theme "One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie" is certainly dark. Yet the Tolkien books don't focus so much on the wizardry as they do the Good Will among the people in the Fellowship, and within the Land of Middle Earth, and on their desire to RID the land of "The Dark Lord". Therefore, it is a dark quest, with dark beings in it, and dark magic. It is the commonality of the pursuit of safety, peace, and goodness, however, that permeate the story. (I won't give away the ending.) Now but for a world where such cooperation exists so strongly as it did in Middle Earth in those days. ©2003 Stephen A. DeVore, Seattle, WA. (Stephen DeVore)
Rating:
Summary: Epic Film/Book For Everyone (that means you!)
Review: No matter who you are, overwhelming odds are you'll love The Lord of the Rings (LOTR). I've read the whole trilogy, but even if that coloured this review of the film, it would be more likely to make me dislike the film as incomparable to the literature. However, I found the movie (dare I say this) practically equal to the literary trilogy. Peter Jackson (who was robbed awards-wise) did an amazing job with this. Tolkien's vision becomes stark reality, with breathtaking cinematography, larger than life special effects, and outstanding acting performances. If you wish to have a comprehensive film collection this is a must-have!
| 
