Rating: 
Summary: Extra features in DVD are great!
Review: My husband is a real Lord of the Rings fan, and was impressed at how close this movie was to the storyline in the books. The DVD has behind-the-scenes footage of many things we found interesting. The main characters are all interviewed, scenes are shown in their creation stages, secrets to making the charcaters seem larger or smaller are exposed, and more. Really brings home the magnitude of this picture's making. The case it all stores in is nice, too.
Rating: 
Summary: The other view
Review: My initial reaction to the film was that I must have missed something. This was the classic that critics and fans alike had raved about? After talking it over with a few friends I have discovered I am not alone. I will not decry this as a bad film it is simply heavy going. For myself I had to watch it in two parts as I fell asleep after the first two hours. Tolkein's stories, though regarded as classics, read like literary exercises rather than narratives and Peter Jackson's film follows suit. Where George Lucas got things very right with Star Wars (Episode IV, not Episodes I & II which coincidentally fall into the same trap as Tolkein's work) by plunging the audience straight into the action and showing us who were the good guys and the bad guys, The Lord of the Rings feels the need to describe it all in minute detail. Did we need to know the history of Wookies to know that Chewbacca was a good guy? No, it was simply obvious. Do we need to know the history of every species in Lord of the Rings? Apparently. The world of Middle Earth seems to be flung at you, Orcs and all, and you can either sink or swim. I sank and I won't be resurfacing for the next two installments, my curiousity having been sated by a quick search for online synopses. One page for all three books and I don't think I missed anything important.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie making -- but is it a great film?
Review: My initial reaction to the theatrical version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" was not wholly positive. It seemed dramatically thin and episodic, as if scenes were missing. * There was an ineffable "vagueness" that made me feel I was caught in a weird, disturbing dream. (Several friends had a similar reaction.) The extended version corrects these problems, and again demonstrates why the director's initial cut is almost always "right." Restoring elements that do not directly relate to Frodo's quest "opens up" the film and allows it to "breathe" where breath is necessary. It's particularly nice to spend a bit more time with the hobbits at the beginning - the theatrical version moves much too "abruptly" into Frodo's flight. Even if you own the first version, toss it and get the extended edition. (I was lucky - the store where I bought the first version allowed me to return it for a full refund, even though I'd opened the package - which is how I learned about the extended edition. Naughty New Line - naughty, naughty New Line!) There are still some quibbles. The tone of the film is so dark that the few bits of humor seem glaringly out of place. Gimli's crack that "This is one dwarf you don't toss!" is so jarringly anachronistic that I nearly jumped out of my theater seat. Peter Jackson's decision to underplay the material and treat it in a dramatic (rather than melodramatic) fashion leaves John Rhys-Davies and Christopher Lee with their heads above-ground, ready to be mown off, acting-wise. You expect dwarves to be feisty and loud-mouthed, and evil wizards to be melodramatically menacing, but these actors' performances are a little too broad to fit well with the other performances. On the other hand, Ian Holmes' turn as Bilbo is the best in the film, and should have earned him a supporting-actor Oscar nomination. In attempting to give epic scope to Tolkien's vision, what was background on the page became foreground in the movie. The incredibly lavish sets and scenery (all digitally enhanced to visual perfection) tend to diminish the characters and their predicaments. The viewer is more aware of the setting than he ought to be. Peter Jackson should have had a long talk with Robert Zemeckis, who has repeatedly demonstrated how to make films loaded with special effects in which you're never aware of them. Remember Orson Welle's remark that "a movie studio is the best set of trains a boy ever had"? One of the reasons "The Lord of the Rings" was filmed was simply to show that such a huge, incredibly difficult and complex project could be successfully pulled off. What if "The Wizard of Oz" had been given the same treatment? ** Would it still be the classic it is? (If you want a possible answer, see "Return to Oz.") Any great story, poem, or piece of music builds to a payoff - emotional, intellectual, or spiritual. Brunhilde's immolation and the redemption of mankind are not isolated events, but what the preceding 17 hours of another famous ring story are leading up to. The story builds and develops toward that point. The ultimate question about Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" is not whether it's faithful to the book, but whether its parts will fit together to be greater than their sum - that after watching twelve hours of film, the viewer will have arrived at a moral or spiritual place different from where he started. I haven't yet decided whether "The Fellowship of the Ring" is a great motion picture. But it is a magnificent piece of movie making. And for that alone it deserves five stars. * This has nothing to do with being aware of scenes omitted from the novel. It is related to the overall pacing of the film, and to the way scenes relate and "flow" into each other. It's hard to describe, but easy to see. ** It was, for its day. But modern technology makes it possible to film the book almost exactly as written - including all the material MGM - and generations of fans - found unnecessary in the movie. There is a difference between "richness" and "bloat."
Rating:
Summary: Makes up for the original release
Review: My largest complaint about the original release of TFOTR was that it was obviously created by a horror movie director. Other than the Shire and Rivendell, everything beautiful was cut and minimized, and way too much time was spent showing Uruk-hai crawling in the mud. It lost way too much of the magic of Middle-Earth; Galadriel seemed vile, Lothlorien was a chilling, uncomfortable place. Very unlike the world Tolkien wrote about. But the extended version does much to rectify this. The added scenes show the charm of the characters. They show the beauty and warmth of Lothlorien and Galadriel, and there is no reason any of these scenes should have been cut to begin with. If I were trying to cut the length of this movie, I'd hack out unnecessary scenes that had nothing to do with the plot, such as the Moria staircase scene or the "Pep talk to Lurtz" scene. The added scenes are far more important to the development of the plot, characters, and world of Middle Earth than other scenes that Peter Jackson was obviously just more attached to as a horror movie director (not trying to badmouth P.J., he did a really great difficult job overall and in the end he did put together this very nice extended version). This extended cut is very natural; the added footage isn't just "stuck in there" like some extended movies I've seen. It is sewn into the tapestry of the film, and new dialog and music add to the film as well. Not just 30 minutes longer, but truly 30 minutes better.
Rating:
Summary: What are you reviewer's talking about?
Review: My mom read the entire trilogy out loud to me and my siblings. The book and the move are so awesome. If you think the movie is boring, read the book. Definitely the best fantasy story ever written, and the movie does a beautiful job of bringing out the book. I admit, I was slightly worried that the movie would end up being a Stars Wars, with all the special effects, but it wasn't. This movie is anything but fluff. It keeps alive the spirit of the book. The actors all do an excellent job. Actually, the only actor's I had heard of were Ian McKellen and Liv Tyler, but I was very impressed with all the characters. I can't wait to see The Two Towers and The Return of the King. The only thing I wasn't completely happy about was the fact that the film lacked some of the aesthetic beauty of Tolkien's masterpiece but oh well. If you haven't seen it, go and get it right now!
Rating: 
Summary: Why not 1 DVD for the feature?
Review: My only complaint about both extended versions (standard and collector's) is this: Why did the feature have to be on two DVD's?! Because its half an hour longer? Yes, that's true, but I don't think that's why. I think the reason the movie had to be split to two DVD's is because there are seven settings for the sound! Seven! Three for the type of surround sound and four for the audio commentaries. Why not produce one DVD with commentaries and one without so as to keep the viewer from having to stop his/her movie experience so they can switch discs. That is the great thing about DVD's over laser discs. DVDs are smaller and you didn't have to switch between discs (I remember Aliens taking three laser discs).
It's too bad the makers of the movie didn't follow one simple rule: One disc to rule them all...
Rating:
Summary: Tolkien would roll over in his grave
Review: My overriding impression was: Evil beasts that were gross beyond the need to be gross, too much violence, not enough story. Long seconds spent in close-ups on Elijah Woods eyes does not a movie make. Frodo ceases to be a character as soon as the quest begins and becomes a "face". The same lack of dimension is true for each character in the movie. When Frodo says that he wishes the ring had never come to him, I wanted to jump up and shout "Same here!". There is little substance to any of the characters and little character development. The third hour of this film dragged on interminably. The only reason I stayed was in the hope that some of the personality exhibited in the Shire would be evident again. It wasn't. The abruptness of the ending was so unnatural that my thought was that in the editing room someone said "I'm tired. It's late. Let's just stop here." A total disappointment!
Rating:
Summary: It's About Time
Review: My second grade teacher read us the Hobbit 26 years ago. Just a few years later, I read the Lord of the Rings for the first of many times. I have waited patiently for this movie to be made ever since.
While I did enjoy the animated version that came out several years ago , I felt that it did not do the story justice. It was too child-like in its adaptation. I do not believe that Tolkien was writing a children's story.
I saw the Lord of the Rings movie yesterday. Simply put, I was awestruck. It was one of the best movies that I have seen in my 33 years. It was just so powerful and well done. I wouldn't change a thing about it.
A special thank you to the creators of this movie for making one of this man's dreams come true.
Rating:
Summary: 4 stars for the dvd, 2 for the movie...
Review: My thoughts are that the movie was too long, and having scenes that just show you spectacular sets, but not telling you anything. It could be a 2 hours movie, or a 3 hours movie with more of the story itself.
Rating:
Summary: A REAL Classic!!!
Review: My two sons, ages 27 and 22, and I have been waiting for the release of this movie. Two of us have read Tolkein and one not. ALL of us loved the movie!!! It is certainly a classic. What a terrific job!!! This movie will be around when Harry Potter is in the dust. Can't wait for the next one. Will buy the DVD as soon as it is available.I'm truly grateful that this classic of fantasy fiction is now on film. Thank you !!!!!
| 
