An excellent film but much more so for those who have read the book.

Rating: 10/10 (24 December 2001)

While I was watching Richard Roeper slag LOTR on his review the other night I tried to figure out why he would do so when nearly every other source(including Roger)loved it. I had yet to see the film so I could only speculate that 1)This is not really part of a trilogy but rather a 1100 page book chopped into three so it totally lacks a satisfactory ending 2)The books are so filled with characters and single chapter adventures that something had to be left out 3)So many million people have read the novel that the director never had full license to render the book into an optimum screenplay for fear of alienating existing fans 4)Richard never read LOTR.
I saw the film tonight and I think I was right on at least three counts. I am a huge fan of the books but there is no question that people who are not won't be thrilled about being left hanging for a year to find out what happens next. The books feature many parts that would be considered dead ends from a two hour screenplay point of view but Tolkien's story telling is inobtrusive enough that it requires 400 pages to flesh out the characters so the full deal would have been a 6 hour film instead 3. It is too bad that the man eating willow and the barrow wights had to be chopped out but that will likely be the way of the whole series. This is a unique film adaptation that we are not likely to see again. More than a 10 out of 10 for most Tolkien fans I think, but for those who don't know the books, just some impressive scenes here and there in a very long film that doesn't have any payoff. I scored it a 10 but I can see why Mr Roeper did not.