Rating: 
Summary: Transfixing
Review: I have never before (well I have but I was a child watching the original Star Wars) been so transfixed by a movie. I've watched fantasy movies, and fantasy books turned into movies, and well, I was transfixed. Enthralled. Drawn in. I went back and saw it again. Then I thought about seeing it a third time. My life is so gray compared to the world of Middle Earth presented in this version of the books. While I would never espouse watching the movie without reading the books, there is no way to put what frodo is thinking, or what sam is thinking, or what quite simply could not fit, into the movie (for example, tom bombadil and the mounds). I was so afraid when I was on Weathertop. I was so upset when our leader died. I was so frightened when one of my friends turned on me. I was so sad when he came to himself and then died. I wasn't watching the movie, either time i saw it. I was living it. I was the fifth hobbit, the third human, the second wizard. I was on the council at Rivendell.... My friends will tell you this is not something that happens to me often (they might say ever). I've never written a Review before. But this movie is to Harry Potter, what Star Wars was to Star Trek. I felt you should know my experience. We have entered a new age of fantasy. I hope we stay here, because I liked it here.
Rating:
Summary: I want to see it again
Review: I first read the trilogy when I was 11 years old and again at about 15. Now I am 18 and am re-reading them. I love these books and wanted the movie to impress me. I was not disappointed. I saw it 2 days after it came out and immediately wanted to see it again, the next day I went, and wanted to see it again. Last night, I was satisfied once more, but still want to see it again. Maybe this sounds fanatical, but I know that I am not alone. I went with some friends that saw it for the first time last night and the first thing that they said was, "it was amazing, lets go again!" I, like everyone else am anxious for the next one to be released, I wish I did not have to wait a year. I think that they did justice to the characters such as the hobbits and the elves, they were as described in the book. All in all, the best movie I have seen in a long time.
Rating:
Summary: My new Favorite
Review: Ok, I must admit that I put off reading the books, although I've always wanted to. After watching the movie, I immediately went out and got the books. I can't wait to see what happens. Although I can't say anything about the movie based on the books, I do know that anyone interested in fantasy/adventure films will love this one! It is my new all-time favorite!
Rating:
Summary: Perfect
Review: Well, as perfect as could be expected given today's audiences and technical and commercial considerations, if you take my meaning.
Perfect: casting, script, location, effects, directing, lighting, Moria.
Merely Good: costuming (Aragorn and the hobbits looked great, but I think Gimli's helm was made of plastic), battle scenes (Moria and the island on the Great River were fantastic, but the Weathertop battle was too easy a win for Aragorn), acting (Agent Smith is Elrond?)
Bad: Galadrial's cheesy "demon voice" was straight out of Evil Dead, lack of back story and motivation for Gimli and Legolas (if you haven't read the books, you'll wonder who these guys are and why they're going with Frodo), film is too short.
Rating:
Summary: Good
Review: Although the BK ads on TV may seem cheesy, this is no way to judge probably the best movie of December, or maybe even the year. The movie has humor, "epicness", and sheer terror at times (those ringwraiths might give some people nightmares). And to add to it all, Peter Jackson brought in a master composer, whom I had never heard of before, Howard Shore. Just the trailer for this movie might make you want to buy the soundtrack. This movie puts shame to the other "most anticipated movie ever" this year, Harry Potter. While Harry Potter stays too faithful to the books, and rushes too much, this movie is not only the perfect time, but also stays just the right amount away from the book, so that people who have never read them before don't get confused (the book requires some major knoledge of Middle Earth). Anyways I think this movie outperforms many of the big-budget films these days in many ways. One of the ways that things like the "mummy" francise, and the updated "planet of the apes" failed in was ACTING. Not only does Ian McKellin do a great job (we knew he could act) but Elijah Wood, child star of such films as "The Good Son" and "Oliver" convinces us that he is not a human, but a full-fledged hobbit. A job well done, lets just hope that the next two will live up to the Fellowship.
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: Bored of the Rings
Review: Back in the 60s or 70s, the Harvard Lampoon (which is where the "National" one came from) published a hilarious spoof of J.R.R. Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" titles "Bored of the Rings" which included such notable characters as Frito and Dildo. That book title occurred to me several times during my viewing of the new movie. I have to say up front, that I was never able to get more than a few chapters into the original book. It just never grabbed me. But I thought, perhaps the movie would inspire me to pick it up again. HAH! To say I was disappointed is a huge understatement. The movie was pretentious. It seemed to be some sort of pathetic Sword and Sorcery cliché. If it weren't for the fact that the original story was written, like, a million years ago, I'd say that it was just a clichéd rip-off of every other film in the genre for the past 30 years. The one exception to this is the size difference in the characters. As the Hobbits are supposed to be pretty small, and the humans big, a good job was done in making us believe the size difference in the actors was real. Well... it was good at first. Then it got to be pretty obvious for it's use of blue-screens and children shot from the back. The graphics were so obviously computer generated that it was laughable. In fact, they reminded me in some scenes of the old "Sinbad the Sailor" movies I watched as a kid. I don't know. Maybe I've become jaded by pioneering effects like those in "Forrest Gump", "Titanic", or "Star Wars: Episode 1". Maybe it's like how once you know how a magician does his tricks, they don't seem very magical anymore - you can spot the trick. I've always been a fan of Elijah Woods. Well, when he was a kid anyway. Now he seems pathetic. For this movie, it appears the make-up wizards glued his eyelids wide open. Then it appears they couldn't unglue them because his eyes stay this way in every scene. I think that prior to every scene they made him drink a couple of gallons of iced-tea and then told him he couldn't pee until the scene was shot. I say this because in every scene he looks like he can't wait to get the hell out of there to take a leak. EVERY scene. There is no change of expression at all. Ian McKellan as Gandalf was also quite weird. I have the feeling I know what was in that pipe he was always smoking (As intimated in the movie as well). He seemed to be unaware of what scene it was or what his lines were. As I said, I never read the book all the way through, and maybe if I had the movie would have made more sense. But as far as I could tell, there was no real story. For a three-hour movie, nothing much really happened. The character development was, for the most, part weak. I kept forgetting that this was taken from a much-loved book - it seemed they were making it up as they went. I half-expected them to whip out a pair of twelve-sided dice to decide what would happen next. To those who claim this is Oscar-caliber, I sneer with derision. D&D fans will probably like this movie. As for me, I kept thinking of a scene in an episode of Friends, where Chandler and Ross can't believe Joey never read "Lord of the Rings" in high school. To which Joey replies "Dude, I was busy having sex in high school." For this reviewer, that would have been time better spent. By the time I was an hour into this movie, I was, indeed, "Bored of the Rings." (OK, nerds. Go ahead and knock my reviewer rating down! LOL!)
Rating:
Summary: Very well done, save a few tidbits
Review: This was an excellent movie, and probably one of the best book to movie relationships. Having read the trilogy at least 10 times, it was great to see the scenes and actors portrayed in real life. For the most part, the acting was very well done, and the scenes were spectacular. The best parts for me were the part at the Ford at Rivendell and the Bridge of Moria. These two must have been the absolute best. My only bone of contention was the very different timeline at the begining of the film. Having Frodo leave immediately after receiving the Ring was not good screenplay, and made the movie feel somewhat rushed. Gandalf's imprisonment didn't seem to fit in and the giving away of Bag End was missed. Though the movie was three hours long, another 25-30 minutes would have been well used. Elrond, played by Hugo Weaving was not a bad player for the part, however he simply didn't seem to be the wise and understanding elf that Elrond portrays. I kept waiting for Elrond to lean over Frodo and say "Mr. Baggins, we've had our eye on you for some time now." in that Agent Smith of the Matrix way. Overall, these and other mistakes can be forgiven by the sheer greatness of the movie. See it.
Rating:
Summary: Wow, What a great movie!
Review: I can excuse the few deviations from the book because this movie was so strong. It spent a healthy amount of time building the characters which will be needed in future allotments. This movie had great acting and perspective. How hard is it to imagine a halfling, but seeing one is impressive. I would recommend this movie for all adults. I believe it would be hard for younger children to sit through. I hope this movie inspires people to read the books. I'm certainly going to re-re-re-read them.
Rating:
Summary: A view from the front row
Review: With filmakers becoming more and more talented it is little surprise that Tolkien's is first rate. I viewed this film twice after reading the book some twenty years ago. Speaking with excited college students around me before the viewing, I was amazed at what a cult following the book still has; indeed the entire audience was college or graduate aged young people with a smattering of greybeards thrown in for balance.
The film not only captured the beauty of all the associated art from the last 40 years, but left the audience with a good sense of sadness and desperation. As I finally came to know the characters again, the film ended, leaving me famished for more.
"Outstanding" and "couldn't be better" are terms to use here.
| 
