New Zealand IS Middle Earth

Rating: 10/10 (21 January 2002)

First of all, I read only about 1/3 of he trilogy (the first book, being the Fellowship of the Ring) before I saw the movie. It turned out to be extremely, beautifully cinematographed and acted out. I saw it 5 times and still can't get enough. The story is the same one with the exception of having some detail left out, which was not by any chance a mistake I would say. It helped the movie move along faster. Otherwise it could've been a bit too long, and was cut down mostly due to time. Now, for those who hate the movie completely, and give ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT to its triumph without any reasonable evidence really are the ones who don't respect movies in the way they should be. (You all have the right to an opinion, however)
Some of you say that the effects "sucked" and were the "typical Hollywood big-budget made for the money". Well, Hollywood itself was halfway around the world from where Peter Jackson was making this wonderful film. So I don't think it influenced him much.
Now about the effects. Some of you who criticize them don't mentioned which ones, so therefore it could be assumed all of them do. Now if you say that, then basically you are saying that the ones in Star Wars suck as well and the ones in the Matrix and the ones in Terminator 2 because they were all breakthroughs like this movie.
Same goes for acting. Those that say the acting was terrible without saying exactly who (and even if you did) also say that EVERY actor in the movie didn't do good. With acting at that level, people like Tom Hanks, Gene Hackman and Robert deNiro (my favorites) would also seem horrible to you pessimists. I personally found every actor in the movie doing the best they have ever done than before.
And for those of you who hated the movie WITHOUT EVEN READING THE BOOK AND HAVING HIGH EXPECTATIONS should change your strategy in watching book-adapted movies. Peter Jackson did not want to do a direct book-to-screen translation (he mentioned it to be impossible in one of his interviews) but rather an "interpretation" where the same idea of the original is taken and translated into the world of cinema (with slight modifications due to the fact that literature =/= cinema) for the readers and non-readers to follow the story. If PJ had left in Tom Bombadil then I am sure that those who have not read the book would get completely off track of the story and would hate the movie even more. And, people, I am sure that Jackson has read the book, like most of you, 10 times in his lifetime. For who else would undertake such a project and put so much effort into it? Certainly not Spielberg, or McTiernan or Cameron since they seem to make Hollywood flicks that show their taste in movies, which don't seem to be very fictinous (except maybe for Terminator). I could be very sure about Danny Boyle's "changes", director of The Beach, since he said in the director's commentary that he did not want to base the movie on the book but rather take the idea and use it efficiently.
Those of you saying the movie was LONG, well if it was short (unlike the book) you'd then be saying that its too short and not enough was explained and that most of the book was cut out. Those that say that the people who voted 10 for this film were (quoting from some comments) "nothing more but ignorable 15-year-olds who just liked the effects and action". Well, I'm pretty much assured that most of those who voted for 10 in Star Wars were below the age of 20. In fact, that movie seems more "tengerish", but I also loved it, though I am 24.
Trust me, if the movie was like the book, I mean like all of you wanted it to be, it would be a total disaster. Too many characters (such as Bombadil), too many extra and not necessarily parts of the journey (Old Forest) and too much dialogue in certain scenes (Council of Elrond). Expect The Two Towers to be more intriguing and have more character development. It really bothers me to see people who insult movies and say things that they don't mean to do, which can be very obviously be seen.
Overall, a momentous start for cinema in the 21st century. 11/10
P.S. Just because some people hate the movie does NOT mean, I repeat DOES NOT MEAN that it doesn't deserve to be praised. And it seems sort of unjust to say that LotR should be ballot stuffed to bring it down from its (currently #2) place in the top 250. That's just disrespectful, to the film and the director. And for those of you who keep comparing it to Star Wars for some reasons should remember that the book was written BEFORE. And give Hugo Weaving a break. The man has to play good guys sometimes and try to pretend that he never was an agent but a wise immortal being...