Mediocre, At Best - Shouldn't Displace Other Truly Great Films

Rating: 1/10 (30 December 2001)

As I sort through the reviews and comments that have been made of this film, I am categorically appalled. Am I the only person in the world who thinks this film shouldn't displace "The Godfather, Part I", "The Shawshank Redemption", "Psycho", "Star Wars", "American Beauty", "Requiem for A Dream" and so many other truly great films? Admittedly, the special effects and casting were supurb, yet the film ultimately becomes unfulfilling and unimaginative. Merely transferring the contents of a novel to the screen without any creative input (other than the multitude of special effects, which became repetitive and unamusing symbols of Hollywood excess) is not deserving in any way of the cinematic laud that this film has received. The creative and literary genius present in so many other great works (eg, Requiem or American Beauty) is not present in any form in this movie. I also found that this film tended to drag in places, and was ultimately not deserving of its three hour runtime. Hollywood has certainly found many ways to dazzle audiences with special effects and the like, but an astute viewer is capable of seeing through this mirage and realizing a film's true worth, and its ability to touch the audience in some tangible way. In the case of "Lord of the Rings," I think this value is generally pretty low. 1 of 10.