Rating: 
Summary: A Flawless Masterpiece
Review: I didn't want to read Tolkien's work but my aunt made. I just thought Harry Potter was way better. So I started with The Hobbit. I loved it and after that I got The Lord of the Rings from the library and I didn't think I'd finish it before the due date so I brought The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit boxed set on .... Now I have it to keep. I saw The Fellowship of the Ring and I think Peter Jackson did a great job along with all the other filmakers. My favorites were Elijah Wood and Billy Boyd. I visit lordoftherings.net and theonering.net every night. Now I like Tolkien's work better than the Harry Potter series. I think everyone should at least see the movie. You don't know what your missing. I almost missed all the good stuff!
Rating:
Summary: Unbelievable -- An Epic that Lives up to the Hype & Beyond
Review: I do not know how some people can give this movie below 5 stars... sure, there is some director's license to mend the movie (otherwise it would be 10 installments not three... :) but the acting and special effects and the sheer grandness of the journey is shown with style, charisma, an beauty. I suggest that everyone watch this movie -- even my wife, a non-Fantasy fan, thoroughly enjoyed this movie. A solid movie not just for Tolkien fans...
Rating: 
Summary: A Guilty Pleasure that Sticks in my Craw
Review: I don't believe my viewpoint has ever been more polarized on a movie. There are two ways to approach reviewing this film and each leads to a very different conclusion. The first approach is to review from a purely cinematic point of view. Does Fellowship of the Ring work as a movie in and of itself? The answer is a resounding "yes." It is ripe with lush visuals, charged and touching emotion, directorial and performance excellence, richly detailed props and special effects that enhance rather than overshadow the story. Others have chosen this reviewing angle and so I will not expound upon its film-for-film's-sake virtues except to say that I liked it enough to have seen the film twice in the theater at full price. A full five stars from this perspective. But the second approach is to compare the movie to its challenging literary source material. Is Fellowship of the Rings an accurate interpretation of Tolkien's masterwork? The answer this time is a (just as resounding) "no." And not by a long shot. The film abounds with alterations to both the plot and motivation of its characters. So much so that I was literally on pins and needles throughout the film awaiting the next sacrilege. The pre-release press for Fellowship of the Rings paid heavy homage to director Peter Jackson's religious adherence to the source material. In light of this, I was appalled to see how often and how casually he departed from the book, even when there was no good excuse to do so. Certainly Jackson could not make an unabridged version of the novel without creating a 20-part series; but the argument that his every change was in the interest of condensing the story into an acceptable theatrical-length release just doesn't ring true. There was considerable material added to the film, the sole purpose of which was to either enhance the romantic relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, or increase the action-packed-thrills-n-spills aspect of the film. In both cases the film was made longer, not shorter, and in my opinion these additions (though perhaps to be expected) did not enhance the film enough to justify the omission of other more important source material. .... So as an accurate interpretation of Tolkien's work, Jackson's Fellowship fails to deliver. While in its essence and its generalities Jackson's version seems faithful to the original, in its details and in so many ways, it is anything but and earns only two stars in this respect. I know it sounds like I hate this movie; I don't. My rating of 4 is an average between my rating of 5 in the film-for-film's-sake review and 2 in the film-as-interpretation review. There can be no doubt that Fellowship is a rip-roaring modern-style action/adventure/fantasy tale--a true classic in the genre--but any Tolkien fan not willing to accept this movie on those terms is bound to be disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Mediocre, sloppy storytelling
Review: I don't care for this movie in the least. Now, don't condemn me right yet, I have viable reasons. Allow me to elucidate my thoughts a bit before you tear me apart like the good little automatons you are. "Lord of the Rings" is considered the godfather of fantasy. It provided the basis, some of the species, and a lot of the mythology behind modern fantasy. So, you can blame it for every one of the "[Blank] of the Dragon" polluting the bookshelves today. Okay, that was a little bit of humor there. But seriously... assuming (like with those fun proofs from Geometry) that the above statement is true, that Lord of the Rings is the basis for modern fantasy, then why hasn't it stood the test of time? Hear me out: "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Alien", and "The Matrix", these are (or, with "The Matrix", will be) what define the science-fiction genre for years to come. Why then has Lord of the Rings been copied, reused, and overdone by other authors and movie makers, and yet these movies have not been (successfully) emulated? Because they are unique. Tolkien may have made the word "hobbit" a word in the dictionary, but what does his story have to offer? I implore you to run along to the next paragraph. Taking place after "The Hobbit", "The Fellowship of the Rings" has Frodo given the care of a magical (and of course, all-powerful, world-destructive) ring and entrusted to quest (the favorite word of fantasy authors) to Mordor to destroy it. Accompanied by his affirmative-action troupe consisting of hobbits, an elf, a dwarf, some humans, and a wizard. Just so we have a diverse cast of characters without any ... CHARACTERIZATION. Am I wrong for wanting to know more about the Ring Wraiths than I do about a whiny little hobbit? The worst part of the movie, apart from being a 3-hour "chase" movie, is that it's uneven. It builds and builds for 45 minutes, and just when one thinks there's a climax coming, it cuts to 45 minutes of melodrama, smarmy dialogue and overdone plot threads (see Liv Tyler). And then it "picks back up" for another hour and a half. Wee. The casting gets a half-hearted vote from me. ... Frodo, no matter HOW frightening the situation is, should not look like he's hallucinating and seeing demon-bunnies. That's beyond frightened. ... The dwarf does little more than scream "We're DOOMED" every time there's something remotely threatening. The elf ... god, the elf. I always thought elves had some shred of masculinity..... Scruffy-human (Aragon) was okay, although he got little play up. I would've liked to have learned a little more about him. Shady-human (Alec Trevlyan from "Goldeneye") was really just "there". Of course, Sir Ian McKellan totally negates all of this because ... he's Sir Ian McKellan. Hitting every single right not, he soars as Gandalf. Of course, he's only on screen for about 10 minutes. The classically trained actor gets less face-time than the pretty-boy archer. Christopher "Yes, I really could kill you" Lee is also perfect as Sorumon [sic] but again gets little more than a glorified cameo. And Sean Austin gets points because he was Rudy. As a two-hour movie, this maybe could've been an enjoyable movie. I'll never know though. ... I give this movie (basically) one star for McKellan and Lee, one star for that completely awesome wizard throw-down (and for seeing Elijah Wood get stabbed), and one star for Bilbo's face at the Elf Shire. ...
Rating:
Summary: This movie was the bomb!
Review: I don't care what other people think, Lord of the Rings should have won best picture. Not A beautiful Mind. Beautiful what?
The Lord of the Rings was an excellent movie in all aspects.
It didn't fail in music,scenary, acting,script or plot. The movie was long and that made it better. I don't understand why directors think they can make a good action film in an hour and a half. It just won't work. I love adventure movies and movies that take place back in time. Before I saw this movie I haven't seen a really good adventure movie in a long time. So this was really enjoyable. I recommend it. It's a masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: N/A (Speechless)
Review: I don't even have the vocabulary to explain how wonderful this extraordinary movie was. All I have to say is I am taking a day off of work this December the 18th to endulge in the second of this incredible trilogy. I assure you that if you do the same you will not be dissapointed. LOTR fan forever!
~BMG
Rating:
Summary: SEE IT!!!
Review: I don't get excited about too many movies but this one was one of the best movies I have seen in a long long time. They did a decent job of staying in-line with the books only leaving out a scant number of secondary characters and bringing the first chapter from the second book in as a cliff hanger was a nice touch. The visual effects are excellent, the plot true to the trilogy, and the actors do a nice job of portraying their characters. It made me pull out the old books, dust them off, and re-read them 25 years after I read them the first time. I can't hardly wait to see the next two installments and that says a lot.
Rating:
Summary: Just astonished !!!
Review: I don't have to write many words about it. It was an excellent adaptation of the first book, with respect to the writer, JRR Tolkien and his work.
If you haven't see it yet do not hesitate, or else you are going to miss a great, 5 stars movie.
Rating:
Summary: this is an amazing movie
Review: I don't know how to put a review into words that would do this movie justice. But here goes.
I liked the movie for these reasons. I have never seen a movie that interprets emotion as well as a book until this movie. Somehow the combination of the costumes, lighting, special effects, and camera angles made it so you could feel the presence of each individual character. It was truly an amazing experience. You actually felt that you were a part of the plot as if you were reading the book, and I am baffled at how that is possible. I think that it is entirely worth going out to see and possibly see again, this is a great movie.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings
Review: I don't like going to the movies very much, but this series I will definitely go to see ALL of these on the big screen.The effects & sound will blow you away!This is a great example of special effects, great adventure & superb story-telling through the actors & actresses.
| 
