Rating: 
Summary: intense...almost psychedelic
Review: My husband is a big fan of Lord of the Rings since he grew up in the 70's. I on the other hand, as a girl, was more concerned with Barbies than with Hobbits. It looks like I missed out.We went and saw TLOTR today and it was intense, to say the least. The effects were amazing...it all looked so real.
But I think for me, who never read the book or watched the earlier animated versions, it made it hard to sit through the three hours. Two hours, no problem, maybe even 2 and 1/2. But, man, that last half hour seemed like an eternity! For me, that was kind of disappointing since I thought the effects/ acting/ costumes/scenery was so amazing...it was dissapointing to feel restless. I felt almost guilty. Weirdest thing too is that I feel like I stared at the screen so long, with the intense footage, I swear I walked out of there in like a dream state. Almost "high". Seriously, it took me a few minutes to ground myself back into the reality of the non-middle earth! Three hours of staring at a huge screen of anything is a long time....let along graphic action scenes. My advice is go see the movie! BUT, eat first so you don't starve during the 30 minutes of previews or the 3 hours of footage. And allow yourself, force yourself, to stare away from the screen every so often. It'll do your eyes and your brain a favor LOL!
Rating: 
Summary: The Bar has Risen
Review: I am a fantasy fan, enjoying such movies like "Star Wars" and "Willow". So obviously I was at FOTR opening day with my advance tickets, having read this wonderful book the previous year. I'm afraid that now I won't be able to enjoy "Star Wars" or "Willow" quite the same way, simply because "Lord of the Rings" has blown them out of the water, and they seem quite dull to me now. There is simply so much to look at, you'd wish you had a camera or could play the movie in slow motion! George Lucas, no doubt, is shaking in his boots now, who no longer takes precedence on epic films. FOTR is the beginning of the greatest fantasy epic I've ever seen, or probably will see. I rejoice as I see the bar has risen severly in Hollywood, and no longer shall we put up with "Battlefield Earth", "The Phantom Menace", or "Dungeons and Dragons". Peter Jackson knows what good filmmaking is about, and filmmakers around the world must rise to occasion to meet the new standard for epic motion pictures.
Rating: 
Summary: All I can say is WOW, that was really boring.
Review: After seeing Harry Potter, I thought that Lord Of The Rings would rivel it in all of the aspects. But alas, it (...).
First of all, it was so boring. All they seemed to do was walk around and fight things the whole movie. Gandolf, that atheletic wizard that seems to give Carl Lewis a run for his money even though he is like 80, is way too intense. Frodo, that funny little midget, is also very intense. Plus, alot of odd characters just popped up. The hot elf Arwen came and went in about 5 minutes. A brute of a hero Strider somehow had the words Frodo and Ring in every sentence that he said. That other hot elf seemed to have an intutition of somebody who has read the script. Plus, I could not distinguish the names of all those magical people. But one good thing came out of that. The midgets running. I just got a crack up out of that. I thought that they should have stood on their hands and juggled with their feet. What are with those feet anyway? Why didn't they just wear shoes in the first place? So, if you are into character development, a comprible plot, and good acting, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! If you are a mindless drone of the Hobbit series, by all means, waste ($$$).
Rating:
Summary: The fantasy movie we've been waiting for all these years!
Review: This film is true, hardcore fantasy. No cyberpunk or technology. Just good old fashioned hack, slash & wizardry! I caught this movie the first day it was released and am so glad I did. Yes, it is 3 hours long, but any epic is going to be lengthy. This film does the book justice. The one thing I was impressed with was the fact that it wasn't "watered down" for the kiddies. It is rated PG-13 and there are some violent fight scenes that don't apologize when people (or orcs) get killed. I was thoroughly impressed with the way they were able to digitally manipulate the hobbits so that they were able to use average sized actors, yet they were still about 3 feet tall! And you couldn't tell there was any manipulation! Clever! I totally agree with another reviewer who said this movie beats Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan and also say that this film does so much more for me than George Lucas ever did. (Of course I'm a Dungeons & Dragons fan, so that sways my vote a little.) I was pleased with the casting also. I thought some roles would be compromised with the likes of Liv Tyler. But none of the big names became pre-madonnas. I was pleased to see Ian Holm as Bilbo and an openly gay Ian McKellan as Gandalf. It just brought back so many memories. If you're remotely interested in the fantasy genre, you owe it to yourself to see this film and the next two chapters in the trilogy once they're released.
Rating:
Summary: my jaw dropped, numerous times
Review: I went as a thirtysomething pragmatic yuppie cynic, hoping for entertainment value and that the CG wasn't going to be too laughable. I returned from the theatre shocked. Overwhelmed. Blown away. Stunned. I don't think there are enough superlatives in the language. I felt that the changes made were appropriate, especially for the benefit of all those who never read the book and/or aren't JRRT geeks. There has also been a lot of discussion that material necessarily left on the cutting room floor for sake of brevity will resurface in a "non-rated" Director's Cut DVD version, and I eagerly await that interpretation as well. I'm a Tolkien nut who's read all his works repeatedly. They are phenomenal stories from an inspired imagination. However, I will admit (probably going to get burned at the stake here) that the LOTR trilogy are incredibly convoluted, wordy and difficult reads, and are at times mind-numbingly trivial in detail. The changes made to the movie for sake of plot logic and pacing were carefully thought out and well executed. The incredibly controversial interpretation of Arwen (I felt) was a brilliant adaptation done to consolidate roles with a secondary and somewhat pointless "loose end" character. This in turn provided motivation and immediacy to Arwen's character, who in the books was rendered so incredibly remote and idealized that one wonders how she could possibly achieve something as earthy as falling in love with a mortal man. Story line, scenes, dialogue and characters essential to drive the plot were faithfully rendered in loving detail. When Frodo puts on the ring, the wraith world he sees is vividly hallucinatory. The interpretation of wizards battling is as a force of Nature, no cliche firebolts thrown here! I think folks should cast aside the hype, preconceived notions, and the opinions of both professionals and armchair critics like myself. Go with an open mind and take your sense of wonder. Everyone who has read JRRT has their own, "treasured" view of how the story should look. The movie adaptation may or may not correspond in every sense, but as a film and screenplay it was (IMO) the most moving media experience I've ever witnessed.
Rating: 
Summary: Unworthy Interpretation of a Modern Classic
Review: As a longtime fan of Tolkein's trilogy, I was looking forward to seeing Peter Jackson's big-screen adaptation of "Fellowship" as much as the next moviegoer, if not moreso, but unlike the majority of moviegoers and critics, I walked out of the film on opening night terribly disappointed by it. This film suffers from more problems than I can even keep track of; for starters, the script is abominable. It strays wildly from Tolkein's original text, often distorting the authour's intent, frequently without any justification whatsoever. The biggest insult of all comes during the film's last few minutes, when Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn is heard to remark: "Let's hunt some orc!" If there's a Tolkein fan alive who didn't recoil in reaction to the insertion of that dreadful modernism, I for one will be quite surprised to learn of his or her existence. The film's pacing is sluggish and feels more like a drawn-out, formulaic travelogue occasionally punctuated by repititious, claustrophobically-shot battle sequences than it does the spirited, multi-layered adventure yarn I first read in my youth. Judging from the restless audience in the theatre on opening night (several members of which rose to exit numerous times during the last third of the film, apparently under the mistaken impression that - at long last - it had ended), I'm not alone in my assessment. Also problematic are "Fellowship"'s special effects, which are an easy five years behind the times, and unfortunately not all that special. Too many of the film's digitally-rendered backgrounds and landscapes (most notably the tower of Isengard and the Elvish city Rivendell) look like old-fashioned matte paintings shot against a blue screen. Especially dreadful are the pivotal scenes set deep within the Mines of Moria, which were pitifully lit and altogether too dark to to focus on without losing track of the film's action. The only thing keeping Jackson's "Fellowship" from being a completely unwatchable travesty is the strength of its impressive ensemble cast. Sir Ian McKellan is wonderful as Gandalf and Elijah Wood and Sean Astin are very impressive as Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee, respectively. A pity they were cursed with such a clueless director and crew. If you want my advice, you're better off saving yourself the seven or eight bucks it'd cost to see this film at the theatre and spending the night at home reading Tolkein's classic.
Rating:
Summary: At least watch the movie
Review: As I have been reading these reviews, I noticed that quite a few negative reviews are by people who have not seen the movie! At least watch the movie before posting an opinion about it. Yes, this movie is that good. I am something of a movie freak and have watched pretty much everything that can be found in you local blockbusters...normally this causes me to be a bit harsher with mainstream movies..ie I hated Harry Potter although i loved the books..since I tend to thing about how a scene may have been edited better or whether something causes the story to flow or whether the director was able to get the viewer to sympathize with the characters etc. The storytelling in this movie is in itself breathtaking and astounding. The natural feel Jackson has for conveying what he wants on film is mindbogling..I havnt seen a film this well directed in a long time. Put that together with source material which is considered a modern literary classic and a cast that was put together for its acting ability and not their box office draw and you have one of the best movies ever filmed. There are other things about this movie besides the movie itself that have me bewildered..like the fact that this huge investment which would have broken the studio was launched without proven box office draw in its cast to assure a big opening day..I guess the confidence in the quality of the film was always there. Look for this movie to stay at the top for a long time..even though its having a great opening box office, this is a word of mouth film and its real money will come around over the course of months. I am also surprised at the number of positive female responses to this movie which is based books with an overwhelmingly male following.
Rating:
Summary: So much to say...
Review: The thing is, there's so much I want to say about this movie. I've seen it twice, and I and my brother have babbled about it for hours since. But my review probably won't be that great because I'm only a moviegoer, not a critic, and feel the immediate need to jump to the point and say that the movie was awesome. This is important: as far as fantasy goes, this is utterly perfect. The acting is perfect, the characters are developed as well as they could be in three hours ("only" three hours), the action is amazing, and the story - originally penned by some guy named Tolken - is, well, the fantasy prototype. And it's surprisingly dramatic. Frodo (Elijah Wood) is, unlike most actors in the new Star Wars films, where characters run around with plastic emotions and say ridiculously unbelievable lines like, "Just being around her is...intoxicating" (uhhh, I might like women, and intoxicating is a good way to describe the effect of some of them on me, but would I ever in my right mind say that out loud?), a very, very surprisingly complex character for a big budget hollywood film (usually most of the money in films of this sort go to production aspects, and not to overly big name actors). The reason the acting in the movie works so well is that, while none of these actors are A-list chamelion-like actors like Kevin Spacey or Tom Hanks, they seem made to fit these specific roles. Yes, there are some moments where you want to roll your eyes just a little bit (when Liv Tyler mutters her first incantation... you kind of have to think to yourself, "okay, this is absolutely necessary"), but by the end, it all seems to fit into the movie. As I said, the movie is perfect, for the type of film it is. However, fantasy movies might just not be your cup of tea, which is fine, and in which case, the worst you'll think of this movie is that it's "good". But the Lord of the Rings - with it's perfectly integrated special effects, actual drama depth, and enough battle scenes to keep any teenager smiling with satisfaction for all three hours (well, maybe the last two and a half) - was designed to reach a wider audience than those who just like fantasy novels, so, unless stories that stray into the fantastical make you vomit, there's no reason for you not to give LOTR a shot. . I know I haven't spoken of the actual plot of the movie, because I always find that it's best to go into a movie knowing as little about it as possible. I'm sure that's going to be hard, given the omnipresence of advertizing, but, trust me, you don't want me to give any of it away. What you should know you've seen in the previews, and if you haven't seem previews, that's all the better. I was ridiculously (upset) when it ended though. In retrospect, and on second viewing, it made perfect sense to end when it did. I'm just irked that I have to wait another twelve months to find out what happens next. Or do I? I think it's time I read those books.
Rating:
Summary: Elegantly Moving
Review: As a (almost) lifelong Tolkien fan, I have been anticipating this film for about 2 years. I went to see it the day it was released, and to be honest, I have virtually nothing to complain about. I don't want to sound like one of those people who loves everything; because believe me, I can be picky. But Peter Jackson did such a good job on 'The Lord of the Rings' that I am completely satisfied. First of all, there definitely were a lot of changes made that didn't correspond with the books. Whole chapters were left out (Old Man Willow and Tom Bombadil to name a couple), different things were put in, and yet the movie seemed to flow perfectly. Rabid Tolkien fanatics will always find something to gripe about, but the rest of us will most likely appreciate a movie well done. I think that the changes that were made were done with great care, and after a day or two of thinking about it, I can understand why Peter Jackson did what he did. It's better to think of the movie as a companion piece to the book, rather than an actual carbon copy of the book put on screen. I see the book as Tolkien's work, and the movie as Peter Jackson's vision and interpretation of the book. Two completely separate things. And then there is the acting. I thought it was done superbly, especially Gandalf. If someone had told me during the movie that an actor was actually portraying Gandalf, I wouldn't have believed them. Ian McKellen could not have done better. I also appreciated how Galadriel is depicted as beautiful yet dangerous and frightening at the same time. Boromir was done extremely well, as was Aragorn. The scenery was breathtaking; New Zealand is a beautiful place, and perfect for 'The Lord of the Rings.' The mountains, valleys, forests and rivers really brought Middle Earth to life. I would recommend this film to anyone, young or old, Tolkien fan or not. However, if you are one of those 'Tolkien purists', then be prepared for disappointment, because there are a lot of changes. But in my opinion, they were all for the good. (Except for the fact that Frodo didn't sing in Bree, but that's trivial.) Go see 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,' you won't regret it.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings
Review: Easily the best book to movie translation ever made. The film is long (almost 3 hours) and leaves you wanting more of the same! Even though some parts had to be cut, the main story is unaffected and even those few people who have not read the books can easily follow the story. Visually the film is dead on to the descriptions given in the book. Peter Jackson has done an outstanding job with all aspects from casting to settings to production. Once you have seen it, you will be counting the days to the release of the Two Towers.
| 
