Very Good, but not Amazing

Rating: 8/10 (23 December 2001)

Discredit me if you'd like, since I haven't read the book. Thus, this little review will not touch on it's faithfulness to the novel itself.
So, I saw the movie on opening night in my home town of Dallas. I must say that I am embittered against the movie makers for revealing so much of the movie in trailers. There were, what, 12 trailers of the movie that were aired on T.V. and in theaters in the months that led up to the movie's release? I mean, after seeing the movie (which felt like a VERY quick 3 hours, by the way), I felt like I'd just seen a long trailer. That, however, my only criticism, lies with the movie publicity people. Idiots.
The movie, however, was quite good. But I'm sure it was more special for those who have not been poisoned by all sci-fi crap hollywood's put out in the last generation or two. For me, a fantasy-challenged movie viewer, "rings" was epic in appearance, but formulaic in essence. Not to detract due credit from J.R.R. Tolkien who has crafted probably the most detailed and beautiful fantasies of all time, however. It's just that who, these days, hasn't seen a movie about a bad guy who's lost his something valuable to him, and the underdog good guys trying to destroy the thing he wants before he can get to it? Of course, one could probably over simplify anything if one wanted to. Even the untouchable Lord of the Rings. Oh well. Good movie, though. DEFINITELY not deserving of the #1 movie of all time nod, though. I think a mass of Tolkien groupies must have hit IMDB the evening of the 19th and have messed up the system.