The First Instalment of the Greatest Trilogy in Film History.

Rating: 10/10 (8 February 2015)

Star Wars, The Godfather, and Indiana Jones are the best trilogies ever. Among them are the three adaptations of JRR Tolkien's Middle Earth epics: The Lord of the Rings. What makes this trilogy superior to the other three I mentioned is that they feature an instalment that is considerably inferior to the others. Return of the Jedi is the worst Star Wars, Godfather III is the worst Godfather and Temple of Doom is the worst Indiana Jones. I would have to call Fellowship the worst Lord of the Rings movie, but it is not considerably inferior to its sequels.
Australian director Peter Jackson brings the timeless sequel to The Hobbit to life. In Middle Earth, Rings were made to different races that gave power. One Ring ruled them all, owned by the dark lord Sauron. Sauron lost the ring in battle and is stubbled upon by a hobbit named Smeagal (Serkis). He goes crazy as the Ring consumes him and becomes a little creature known as Gollum. The Ring leaves him and is found by another hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Holm). When Bilbo leaves, the Ring is no longer left with an owner, so Sauron and his ugly band of Orcs are reawaken and seek the Ring. After wizard, Gandalf (McKellen) discovers the Ring's unspeakable powers, Bilbo's young nephew, Frodo (Wood) becomes the carrier and is joined by a group of warriors to Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring.
Lord of the Rings is a true masterpiece. I found each sequel better than the last. But there are some people that are not fans of any of them. Famous film critic and award winning journalist, Richard Roeper, gave this movie thumbs down when he and Roger Ebert reviewed it. he later changed his mind after seeing the other movies, but still. And I know of people that don't like these movies because they found the whole fantasy subject to be too cheesy and unrealistic. Well, that's what a fantasy movie is: unrealistic. People that don't like these movies are completely ignorant to movies and storytelling. The whole premise of these movies are long and complex that need lots of explaining. Most people generally don't understand the story, which is why my summary is long. It may follow the general monomyth archetype, but it is full of subplots and backstories that make the plot more complex and original than other monomyth archetypes. But what people love to praise is the general filming. People that don't like the LOTR movies fail to understand how difficult and masterful the movies were made. Take any five minutes of this, and think about how much work was put into it. All the make-up, costumes, set pieces, choreography, etc, etc. That is why these movies are such joys to see and why you can't take your eyes off of them. I honestly don't think there has been any movies since that have been harder to make than this. If so, they're not that much harder.
Peter Jackson recently finish his trilogy of The Hobbit. The Hobbit is one novel that's a prequel to LOTR. Jackson made three epics of one 400 paged story. I don't think he should have done so. The Hobbit movies are not at the level of the LOTR movies. If you ask me, Jackson should have done two Hobbit movies in 1998 and 1999, then do the LOTR as is. He would have ended on a better note then.
4/4