I'll be the one... blahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Rating: 2/10 (10 February 2002)

The book was better than the movie. Because I didn't read the book... and unfortunately, I did see the movie.
There is no question that undertaking to bring the Tolkien saga to the screen was a massive undertaking, and everyone who read the book just loves the movie. To my mind, however, a movie has to stand on its own, and as a movie, it just lacked. In fact, so much of the film was unexplained, that I, as a non-devotee of Tolkien, felt lost from the get-go.
From the ever-changing size of the Hobbits (sometimes they look 2 ft tall, sometimes 5 ft tall) to the endlessly jarring and muddled battle sequences, to the ever-dragging plot (how many orc battles can you have, for Pete's sake?) to the viciously unsatisfying ending (you mean I have to sit through 6 more hours of this crap to find out how it ends?), it was all just ho-hum film. It did have some outstanding performances from Viggo Mortensen and Liv Tyler to balance out the caricaturish Ian McKellan and the plastic Elijah Wood. I'd put it up there with "Krull" or "Labyrinth" or any other so-so fantasy picture. There have been dozens upon dozens of films in the genre that were far better movies.
Okay. Tolkien was a genius. The books are awesome, and the movies remain very true to the book, you will hear. And that may all be true. But taken on it's own value, "Lord of the Rings" was a confusing, self-gratifying, pretentious, hackneyed bit of filmmaking. If you're going to spend the three hours watching the movie.... spend three days and read the book first.