Rating: 
Summary: Hype and not a lot else
Review: Have you ever read the book?Yes? Ever Do it in one go? No? Thats why this is a bad film! It rambels on and on and on and on some more never really going any where. People say "but the book rambels too" well thats why they change books so much when the turn them into movies - because they are to very difrent medias. If I saw Lord of the Rings with no knoweledge of the books or the other films I would have to say it was over long, badly written and over acted by the many mis-cast actors. I would rather watch the cartoon lord of the rings movie, yes its very difrent from the books, thats because its a more like real Movie and personly when i go the cinama i exspect to see a Film on the screen and not a book. I for one will not be going to see any more of Peter Jackson's LOTR films.
Rating:
Summary: EVER READ THE BOOK?
Review: Have you ever read the book? Yes? Have you ever read it in one sitting? No? Thats why this is a BAD film! I hate to point this out but a book and a movie are two very difrent medias, so even if a film is just like the book does not allways mean its a good film because the convenctions are so difrent, personly i found Lord of the Rings; over long, Over acted and under written. This is why books get changed so much when they are adapted for screen, If you wanna see a better vertion of LOTR then watch the cartoon. Yes its diffrent, thats because its more of a movie than a book on the screen. And thats a good thing. I for sure will not be watching the other Two of Peter Jacksons LOTR films no mater how much how much like the book they are.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautifull yet Boring.
Review: Having an expensive production and fantastic visuals does'nt mean the movie is great. I have never read the book and I must say the movie was an over acted drama. I was yawning for the full 2 hours and 45 minutes, well maybee the ogre fight scene was cool. To it's defence it wasnt as bad as Mummy 2. But where it fails is to inovate, it's just like every other fairy tail we have seen up to date. This movie should have been done 20 years ago with star wars. Now it just has no impact. Every one who is giving it a 5 point review just has a "me too complex". Stuff it!
Rating: 
Summary: The Best of the Best
Review: Having at last seen all three installments of Jackson's beautiful trilogy, I can say that the only problem would be picking the best of the three. I have leaned toward "Fellowship," I think, because of it's sheer beauty. The greens of the Shire, the russet colors of Rivendell, the Silvers of Lothlorien...the Alan Lee and John Howe designs convey the peaceful, the powerful, the majestic and the endangered. Perhaps because this film, like the book it is based on, is, for its first two thirds, the calm before the storm of action, terror, and violence that will permeate the next two films, it is the most able to convey total harmony in all it's parts. The artistic design, the music, and the acting are all perfectly inspired and inspiring, fueled and fueling of one another. So much has been said of these films that it is hard to add anything meaningful; but I would like to add my opinion here because I feel these films have been a gift, of a sort, to all whose hearts are open to their messages.
Rating:
Summary: Utterly awe-inspiring
Review: Having been a fan of Jackson's superb 'Heavenly Creatures' I came to this movie with high expectations, just like those fans of Tolkien's books that went. Basically, it live up to them. Firstly I'll deal with those fans that seemed to expect a text-to-script translation. Yes there are some characters that are omitted but this is necessary for all movies of the book. The general public wouldn't be prepared to sit through a fantasy film of much over 3 hours (sad though this is). People who went to see this wanting an exact replica of the book will be disappointed. The movie succeeds on so many levels that it's countless to name them. Obviously a great deal of care has gone into the replication of all of the creatures from the books, with many being genuinely scary to the extent that I was surprised that the movie didn't get a higher certificate. As for the performances - they are perfectly paced, especially Ian McKellen and Elijah Wood. Characterisation is also impressive for a movie that effectively has the whole fellowship and essential characters that they meet on the way to get to grips with. The audience is made to actually care for the hobbits, elves and humans that grace the screen in front of us. The special effects are completely mind-blowing and a landmark in that field. We get treated to a variety of kingdoms, a fiersome demon and countless works of magic. Unlike such movies as 'Titanic' for example, the hobbits never appear superimposed over their fantastical background. All of this completely immerses the viewer in the movie. In fact, the only problem that I had with the movie at all was the somewhat perfunctory forbidden love subplot which, if it wasn't going to be included properly, should have been left out entirely. It's hard not to get the feeling that this was forced upon Jackson to appeal to a wider audience base. Yet 'The Fellowship of the Rings' is most successful in that it does appeal to both readers of the book and to those that haven't. In this it is a true success, not just a classic in fantasy film but a classic of film full stop.
Rating:
Summary: Incedible experience
Review: Having been a Tolkien fan since I was a child I had such impossibly high expectations for this movie. I knew if it failed it would fail miserably. But it absolutely blew me away. The actng and effects were flawless and I cannot wait for the huge battles of the sequels. It's a shame that the DVD won't be out until August but from what I hear it will be worth the wait, as apparently it will be an even longer version than the one in the cinema. I've seen this film 3 times and cannot recommend it enough. Roll on Christmas 2002.
Rating:
Summary: Mind-boggling creativity! Tolkien AND Jackson
Review: Having heard about Tolkien's works only vaguely, and having missed this film in theaters when it came out, I am hardly a "fan" either of the genre, or of Tolkien. But, oh my goodness, my nephew pestered me to accompany him to watch the Two Towers, and when the movie was over, I sat dumbfounded in my seat for a while - for I was angry that the magic was over. :)) And I watched the extended edition of the FOTR, and now I've become a hard-core Tolkien geek, explaining (unasked) to people, as to how Aragorn and Elrond have maia,elf and human blood in their veins, much to the annoyance of my nephew and my friends.
But much more importantly, in this 21st century culture, bereft of either subtlety or refinement, the loftier realms in which tolkien's moral universe has been anchored, need to be brought to life, if only for how it could influence today's younger generation - the virtues of friendship, honor, the will to renounce power, steadfastness, valor and so on and so forth. The whole is MUCH grander than the sum of its parts - its a matter of the story,casting,technology,location and direction coming together to arrive at such a LANDMARK. Truly.
This is probably the DVD(set) that justifies the development of DVD technology, for content and quality.
Rating:
Summary: An Oscar Injustice
Review: Having just seen "A Beautiful Mind," I am in--for lack of a better word--shock that this production (which will be nothing more than a footnote in cinematic history) beat LOTR for Best Picture. Peter Jackson's bold and vivid account of Tolkien's epic classic has singlehandedly resurrected the fantasy genre--an accomplishment more than worthy of Oscar's highest honor. For those who are unfamiliar with Tolkien's tale of Middle-earth (there still may be a handful of you out there), please note that I will refrain from discussing the details of LOTR in this review; there are literally hundreds of reviews on this site that summarize the plot of this superb film in minute detail. My only advice to the unintiated: buy the VHS (or DVD). Then sit back--with an open mind--and allow Tolkien's formidable, yet simple story (good vs. evil) sweep you away during a three-hour breathtaking cinematic experience. The film breathes life into Tolkien's beautiful but dangerous Middle-earth. Yes, some of the Tolkien "purists" may be disappointed that the movie made some "artistic" adjustments (no Tom Bombadil or Glorfindel, for example), but overall the film stays true to the majestic components of the story. And please don't be intimidated by the film's length: as Tolkien himself lamented in his "Forward to the Second Edition," the book (all 1,000 pages) is "too short." And for the "Fellowship of the Ring," the first installment of the LOTR trilogy, the movie itself--in its valiant effort to capture the scope and feel of Tolkien's masterpiece--is far, far "too short." Get this movie. Enjoy the year's TRUE Best Picture.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful depiction of Tolkien's work
Review: Having just seen the film, I can highly recommend this movie to all fans of Tolkien and fantasy films alike. The film remained highly true to both the books and illustrations of Tolkien, while taking some artistic license for the sake of viewability (but not much). Visually, almost all of the film is stunning, majestic, and highly memorable. It also helps bring certain elements of the books to life that I personally had overlooked or forgotten (for example, the transformation of Saruman's tower from majestic to horrific through the destruction of the terrain and smelting). Casting for Lord of the Rings was excellent. Christopher Lee as Saruman was a brilliant selection, as were those cast for other major parts including the Hobbits (especially Frodo), Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas. There were some elements missing from the books that probably should have been in the movie. One of which is the exchange between Strider and the Innkeeper (who only remembers his name because people shout it at him all day long). Another element that seems to be missing is the change in attitudes between Gimli and Legolas as they go from being natural enemies to the most unusual of friends through the trials they face in the fellowship of the Ringbearer. This element seems sadly overlooked. Other elements that were written out were probably due to time constraints and are wholly understandable (after all, the film is three hours). Families may be intimidated to take small children, as this is a rather long story. Some of the gore is unsuitable for younger viewers (including, but not limited to, intense scenes, violent swordfights including decapitations, and horrific elements that could give children nightmares). Older children will enjoy this film, and the depiction of a struggle of good against evil is not marred by the use of adult language or sexual scenes, making this film relatively tame, considering its PG-13 rating. Visually, this film is more in the classification of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," as opposed to "Star Wars: Phantom Menace" (which is what everyone apparently wants to compare it to). It lacks the speed and pace of a Star Wars movie and is much more in keeping with the feel of epic, sweeping fantasy (like "Crouching Tiger"). One nice comment is that the film does NOT use either Bullet Time photography or martial arts (something that has become quite popular since the advent of The Matrix); the movie is true to the period depicted. Definitely recommended.
Rating:
Summary: The worst movie you've ever seen was better that this one
Review: Having missed this movie when it was out in the theaters, my husband and I decided to rent the DVD before we puchased it...a smart decision as it turned out. This movie was so terrible that we turned if off after the first hour: the only reason I subjected myself to that much of this drivel is because I love Ian McKellan's acting, regardless of what part he plays. He's the only reason I even gave this movie 1 star--that and because 0 stars is not possible with amazon.com's rating system. Elijah Wood is beyond irritating as Frodo, the villian who forged the ring is utterly impotent, and the Golum character who terrified me when I was a child and first exposed to this story was completely pitiable in this hackneyed version--getting my money back from the video store for this rental was easy; where do I go to demand a refund of my time is what I need to know now.
| 
