Cal (insert last name here...) (PvtCaboose91)

"This is John Connor. If you are listening to this, you are the resistance."

The year is 2018, the sky is ashen, machines rule the world, and the only humans which remain (who've undergone a humour bypass) constitute "The Resistance". That's the simplified synopsis of the fourth instalment in the Terminator franchise; a dull, predictable, bloated exercise in CGI overload which could easily be mistaken for a Transformers sequel. While the previous three films offered glimpses into the devastated futureworld dominated by the self-aware SkyNet, Terminator Salvation is the first sequel to be set entirely in that future, which provides the series with a new look. It's a shame, then, that it's merely another trembling step backwards for the franchise, and an appalling buttfucking of a once-great series of time-travelling adventures. With awful dialogue, an uninteresting plot and mostly uninspired performances, the human element has (ironically) been drained from the franchise... The machines have won.

The narrative intentions of Terminator Salvation are simple: John Connor (Bale) has to meet his father Kyle Reese (Yelchin), become the leader of the resistance, and get his scar. Meanwhile Kyle is being held captive by SkyNet, and Connor's superiors plan to bomb the complex with no regard for the human prisoners inside...which means Connor must launch a rescue mission. But the movie is more consumed with a secondary plot strand involving a man named Marcus Wright (Worthington). He's first seen as a death-row inmate on his way to lethal injection in 2003, but is suddenly resurrected in the apocalyptic 2018 with no memory of what has occurred in the years between.

Our brains logically tell us that this is John Connor's story. The Terminator franchise has always been about Connor. So why does Salvation inexplicably focus on the character of Marcus? In fact, Connor is pushed into the background...he becomes the supporting player in his own series (in the original script, Connor had an even smaller role, but the part was made comparatively larger when Bale signed on). Salvation mainly suffers from countless story problems. For instance, SkyNet are shown manufacturing the T-800 Terminators (those portrayed by Arnie in prior sequels) when the human/terminator hybrid Marcus was assembled beforehand... Why would SkyNet begin with the complete package (as in Marcus) and then regress to the inferior Schwarzenegger-style T-800? The terminator models are simply a joke in this film - there are Growlenators (seriously, the T-800s were growling), Throwenators (they just throw everything in sight instead of, ya know, killing their targets) and ready-for-humans-to-hijack Motorcyclenators. Adding insult to injury, there are even enormous machines which resemble the Transformers that stomped around in Michael Bay's cinematic abortion of a 2009 summer blockbuster. Couple this nonsense with the fact that one of these Transformer-type machines at one stage manages to silently sneak up on a group of humans...

Terminator Salvation neglects the cardinal rule of action cinema - introducing human characters a viewer can care about. The film plays out like a video game tie-in to the original franchise, and even proceeds with video game logic. It's set in 2018 when John Connor hasn't become the leader yet... So why has SkyNet been hunting Connor for years? He doesn't smash their defence grid until 2029, which is when SkyNet decides to send a T-800 back in time to terminate his mother. Moreover, how could SkyNet concoct an elaborate trap using Kyle Reese when it's impossible for the system to have any knowledge that he's Connor's father? And if SkyNet knew Reese was Connor's father, why not just kill him? Eventually Terminator Salvation culminates with an exhaustively moronic climax. To begin with, Connor frees a bunch of prisoners and tells them to run for "the transport ship". He has seemingly forgotten that he came alone on a Motorcyclenator and that there is no transport ship. Oops...

The first cut for Terminator Salvation was apparently 30-40 minutes longer than the theatrical cut, and the sloppy trimming is obvious throughout the entire film. This is felt most directly with the character of Blair (Bloodgood) who nonsensically botches her allegiance to the Resistance in order to protect Marcus from justifiable execution after only one day spent together. Screenwriters John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris may have been natural picks for Salvation considering they wrote Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, but the duo also penned Catwoman and Primeval (that cheesy crocodile feature, not the BBC series). The dialogue is particularly appalling - the characters spout hackneyed action movie speak, while occasionally recycling trademark lines from earlier Terminator movies. For his tirade, Bale should have lashed out at the screenwriters rather than the cinematographer (who admittedly crafted a stylish, good-looking film).

For all of Christian Bale's public insistence that McG is more talented than his moronic stage name suggests, he's still the guy who directed Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. With not much of a story to worry about and no complex characters, there wasn't much preventing McG from crafting kick-ass action sequences. Except, uh...lack of skill!! As painful as it is to say (well, not really), the explosive, epic battles between man and machine are dull. The future war scenes imagined by James Cameron in the first two Terminator movies were murky, petrifying and dark. 200 million dollars were blown on this movie, but nothing matches Cameron's masterful work (not even the set-pieces in the original film should feel threatened...and they were produced on a $7 million budget). The only positives of Salvation (amazing CGI, great production design) are merely superficial - if a turd is coated in gold, it's still a turd...just a shiny one. The biggest action set-piece of the film feels like something from Transformers, and other highlights feel as if they've been lifted from other films (shots of helicopters landing resemble Apocalypse Now, the Motorcyclenators look like something from The Dark Knight, some shots from prior Terminator films have been replicated, etc... Terminator Regurgitation is a more appropriate title). Bear this in mind as well: Salvation is a Terminator movie directed by a producer of The O.C.... The technological lethargy even extends to Danny Elfman's score, which only reminds a viewer just how terrific Brad Fiedel's original music was.

All the sound and fury of the powerhouse action sequences can't make up for the studious lack of humanity. The characters are one-dimensional ciphers who never evoke passion or enthusiasm. A viewer will only root for these characters based on their appearances in prior instalments (another huge issue, since some consider this a "reboot" of the franchise that's independent from all other Terminator films). Playing John Connor, Christian Bale unleashes his Gotham Growl, but he's sullen and tedious. Worse, he doesn't feel like the kind of guy who would fire up anyone, let alone the remainder of the human population. For his famous on-set rant, Bale displayed more drama, emotionality and variety than anything in the actual film. Sam Worthington, on the other hand, is passable - it's just a shame he's never given a chance to truly test his acting ability. Meanwhile the supporting cast is miserably wasted. Helena Bonham Carter is embarrassing, Michael Ironside is hopelessly flat, and Terry Crews is reduced to...a corpse seen in a single blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot. Arnold Schwarzenegger's much-discussed CGI cameo is hardly convincing; he looks like the product of a Pixar movie.

The unforgivable problem with Salvation is its PG-13 rating. Terminator is an R-rated franchise, and this toned-down, kid-friendly sequel is neutered beyond repair (nothing more unsightly than a man being mowed down with a mini-gun before merely slumping over). The visceral nature of the first two movies generated by heavy violence and profanity made an audience feel that the protagonists were in genuine danger. In Salvation, it feels like the characters are merely going through the motions and are never in real peril. A talented director given a better-written R-rated script and the same budget could have turned this into another classic. As it is...this is Terminator Castration.

I've got this far without comparing Salvation to Terminator 3. The reasoning is simple, really: why spend a review comparing two poor films? It's hardly a way to describe subpar quality. It's like saying Uwe Boll's most recent effort is worse than his previous films - it'd be a hollow statement. For the sake of those interested, however, Salvation is worse than Terminator 3.

Compared with James Cameron's two thought-provoking action classics, Salvation is a powerfully dumb film. The first two movies offered sprawling stories, visceral thrills, deep drama and well-defined characters. This film strains credibility with epic unlikelihoods, and tries to camouflage them with nonstop paroxysms. It doesn't matter how awesomely designed the robots are rendered; without gripping drama, characters to sympathise with or even an ounce of humour, Terminator Suckvation is a dumbed-down, soulless summer offering - the commercialisation of the Terminator franchise which might as well have been Transformers 3.

And guess what? More sequels are imminent...

"You gotta risk it to get the biscuit."

Fired Up! might as well have been entitled Cheer Leader Movie or Teen Movie, because those are far more suitable titles considering the bottom-of-the-barrel quality of the film it's concerning. The only thing to differentiate this comedic dud from the likes of Date Movie, Epic Movie and Disaster Movie is the absence of the names Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg from the credits. Instead, there's a first-time director named Will Gluck, and a group of four writers who credit themselves as 'Freedom Jones'. Fired Up! is nothing we haven't already seen countless times - it's a watered-down hodgepodge of several other films, and the result kills laughter rather than triggering it.

Working under the assumption that girls are as stupid as cattle, the movie introduces Nick (Olsen) and Shawn (D'Agosto); two football-playing studs who have used up the reserve of girls at their high school, and are seeking a new lady-killing challenge. The boys decide to ditch football camp in favour of cheerleading camp when they learn that it'll be attended by 300 young women. They worm their way onto the squad and hence into the camp, then proceed to sleep with anything that moves. But trouble arises when Shawn falls in love with one of their team-members.

After a brief opening sequence which establishes the protagonists as through-and-through jerks, Fired Up! embarks on a profoundly unfunny quest to add any sort of non-sequitur to the mix; assuming that conventional absurdity will wash over audiences like laughing gas. The actors are visibly too old for their roles, but the jokes are older than the Bible - the film is a morass of tired, obvious and telegraphed gags, from the mascots who never remove their costumes to the cheerleaders chanting about what they're doing all the time ("We are eating, we we are eating"), and even a scene in which the cheerleaders repeatedly chant "FU!" for Fired Up...because the very notion of the girls almost cursing is side-splitting, of course. The film also relies on the outtakes-during-the-end-credits approach to generate a few cheap, late laughs...but even these aren't even slightly funny. How bad must a movie be to contain a dud blooper reel?! And, despite the presence of talent like Philip Baker Hall and John Michael Higgins, the side characters are never given a chance to make an impact - they have been reduced to one-note caricatures or, in the case of the females, personality-free sex objects. Masochism aside, there are also homosexual gags - primarily a constant suggestion that all male cheerleaders must be gay.

Among the biggest problems with Fired Up! is that it contains absolutely no surprises. With such a totally obvious plot, you'll be able to predict what will happen at every juncture. The minute Shawn takes a shine for his teammate Carly (Roemer), it's obvious they'll eventually get together. But not after she overcomes her Jerk Boyfriend Who Sleeps With Other Girls (TM), and the Break Up To Make Up Scenario Because The Protagonist's Disreputable Original Plans Which He Decided To Change Were Discovered (TM). See, the two boys wanted to leave camp a week early, but they realise they've grown to care about the team and decide to stay, but their initial treachery is uncovered and they have to prove themselves to the team. Sound like anything new? Combine this with the fact that Nick wants to go to bed with the "unattainable" camp counsellor who's married to an old guy. Care to venture a guess about how that'll pan out? A Frankenstein's Monster of a movie, Fired Up! has three things on its mind: showcasing the improvisatory "skills" of the stars, PG-13 titillation, and cashing in on a cheerleading genre that's already passé. In reality, these intentions add up to a big headache of a movie, with director Gluck highlighting his naivety behind the camera through routine shot construction and a permissive attitude with the cast, who all seem to think they're God's gift to comedy. Nicholas D'Agosto and Eric Christian Olsen (aged 29 and 31, respectively) play the least convincing high school students imaginable, and they spend their screen-time mugging the camera. Neither actor possesses any degree of charisma, nor does the duo have the skill for turning bad material into less-bad material. Crucially, why should we care about these shallow douchebags who try to tap every female in sight?

It would seem that Fired Up! was intended to be a parody of Bring it On (the characters even view the movie at one stage, and recite every single line verbatim), though that's not for certain. See, the concept of a parody implies humour, and there's nothing even resembling laughs within this tripe. Making matters worse, this is an obviously R-rated movie masquerading as a PG-13 (ah, nothing like a smutty teen comedy in which the guys ogle fully dressed women). The emasculation is so painfully obvious that it calls attention to itself: characters wear clothes for skinny-dipping scenes, there are euphemisms for "fuck", and the sexual innuendo is softened. According to IMDb, the movie was submitted to the MPAA a grand total of 18 times before it was finally slapped with a PG-13 rating. A raunchier approach to Fired Up! may not have spawned a superior film per se, but it would've seemed more honest, and there would have been at least some guilty pleasure moments.

There's no checking your qualms at the door and riding along with Fired Up!, as it manages to be unfunny and offensive at every turn. Girls sucked in by the cheerleading theme will merely find out that boys perceive them as dumb-as-rocks sex objects, while the male demographic seeking raunchy laughs will find more original, funnier stuff in the first American Pie movie. If there's something rarer than a great comedy, it's a depressing one that somehow manages to produce not a single laugh (even with outtakes in consideration). Fired Up! is one of those - it's so formulaic, disposable and instantly forgettable, and even if you do find these gags funny, you'll be hard-pressed to justify why you found it at all amusing once you finish watching it.

"The battle of Helm's Deep is over; the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin..."

Through my eyes, Peter Jackson's much-anticipated and much-glorified The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the paradigmatic example of a perfect movie. The cinematic journey that initiated on Boxing Day 2001 and quickly received worldwide acclaim ultimately came to a conclusion with this final instalment. Personally, my passion for the Lord of the Rings trilogy never ceased and to this day I continue to view them frequently.

Just like its two precursors, The Return of the King was met with a congregation of positive reviews and of course recognition from the Oscar committee. I was ecstatic during the Oscar season at the beginning of 2004 when I discovered that the film was recognised with 11 Oscar nominations. Needless to say, I was even more ecstatic when Peter Jackson and his crew walked away with all 11 in their possession. The Return of the King won literally hundreds of awards worldwide and above all it accomplished a Box Office landmark: breaking the $1 billion milestone and becoming just the second film in history to do so. With this film walking away after sweeping the Oscars and sitting at a convincing second on the worldwide box office (as of mid-2008), this is indeed a rare event when it comes to a film offering of the fantasy genre. The technical proficiency is purely the finest that money can buy. Jackson's team at WETA workshop single-handedly created and rendered all special effects shots using software they had designed themselves.

This is by far the longest instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy; however it never feels too long. While many will complain (endlessly complain) about the length, I see the film in a completely different light. The way I see it the length is necessary to maintain a sense of fidelity to the novel and to successfully wrap everything up. If anything, I hate it when filmmakers rush things and end up with a missed opportunity on their hands. Peter Jackson had a modest budget and some astronomically amazing special effects on his side, so the work in every other department had to be top notch. Jackson's supreme gift is that of total immersion; the breathtaking lands of Middle Earth remain vibrantly alive. The film's pace may be reasonably slow for some, but the beauty soars with opulent layers of architecture, geography and complex storytelling.

Just like both entries thus far in the trilogy, The Return of the King reinvents the word "epic" completely. Many of the battles throughout the film display rich texture, and awe-inspiring showcases of visual effects. The action is emphatically extravagant and brought to life on an exorbitantly impressive scale! But what separates this from most fantasy epics is the heart at its core. Whenever there's a battle, you'll always find a satisfying serving of emotionally-charged moments featuring intimate scenes with the central protagonists. This coupling of visceral special effects and moving moments that display deep camaraderie is absolutely spellbinding!

This third and final instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy starts off almost exactly where The Two Towers ended. One must remember that all three of Tolkien's novels were written to plainly be one enormous piece of literature, and it was his publisher that insisted the novel should be split up the three shorter, more convenient components. In essence, all three additions to the cinematic Lord of the Rings trilogy can be edited together and the transitions would be seamless. The films are identical to the situation with Tolkien's novels: one big chunk of storytelling that's separated into three parts. You can never watch The Return of the King without first watching the initial two parts as this was never meant to be a standalone movie.

The first section of the plot here is concerned with Frodo (Wood), Sam (Astin) and the creature Gollum (a digital character played by Andy Serkis). As they move closer to the dark lands of Mordor, towards the fire of Mount Doom where the One Ring must be destroyed, the ring is becoming a heavier burden for the troubled young Frodo. As the quest perseveres, Frodo is becoming severely tested. Faith has been placed in Gollum to lead the Hobbits to Mount Doom despite the constant mistrust that Sam holds for the former Hobbit. On the outside this seems like a simple physically straining journey, but it's also an emotionally tiring journey on the inside for the three companions. While this story unfolds, the focus also alters to the remainder of the original fellowship. Sauron's eye has shifted to the city of Minas Tirith, the capital of Gondor, as the next target for his rampaging army. The fall of Gondor will mean the end of Men and the completion of his objective to clean Middle Earth of the species. A portion of the original fellowship, along with a horde of newer characters, move to the city of Minas Tirith to help build up defence for the impending attack and possible destruction of the White City. We find Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Rhys-Davis) through their more diverse journey into the cursed mountains to summon the legendary Army of the Dead.

This brief synopsis barely breaks the surface of this grandiose, all-round extremely satisfying epic film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is an unprecedented milestone of contemporary moviemaking. If The Two Towers raised the bar with its epic battles, then The Return of the King knocks the bar cleanly out of the ground! This is so much more than just a simple fantasy epic, in fact this is multi-faceted tale about the strength of character, friendship, loyalty and love. Each shot is sizzling with visual elegance...the special effects are nothing short of breathtaking! Every battle is truly monumental in its sheer scale, as well as exciting and intense. Previously, I briefly touched on the emotionally-straining moments that this film has to offer. The cast pull off these moments beautifully and I was extremely close to tears more than once during the movie. There are several truly moving moments that still give me goose bumps at the simple thought of them. These moments are fuelled by not only the motivating performances, but the score courtesy of composer Howard Shore. The composer was recognised with an Oscar and I plainly cannot quibble with this decision. The music retains the elegance of the visuals, and even makes the epic battles look even grander.

There are only a few new additions to the cast that are introduced here, the most notable being Australian actor John Noble as Denethor who rules Minas Tirith with an iron fist. The Oscar committee barely gave any recognition to the actors (only awarding Ian McKellen with a nomination for Fellowship). I guess with so many people in the cast it'd be impossible to choose one or two for a nomination. Andy Serkis is one member of the cast that deserves particular credit. He's hidden behind digital make-up, but each line he delivers is potent and really hits home. The acting from Elijah Wood is truly a triumph to behold. His performance required a great degree of emotion to portray the ring's power to corrupt. His performance was critical in order to display the ring's influence, which needless to say is absolute. Each character has their own personal demon to confront, and each undergoes their own inner journey. Every cast member does their job stunningly.

The Return of the King has of course been filmed in Peter Jackson's homeland of New Zealand. The Kiwi landscape is vast and beautiful. Whenever one views the film we're taking a step inside the gorgeous land of Middle Earth. Peter Jackson is a visionary, and like all the preceding films the attention and care to every conceivable detail is incredible.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a build up with an even share of action and exposition. The Two Towers is more exposition and build up followed by some action. With The Return of the King, the build up is definitely worth it...every second. The exposition has already been established in the other films, so this film is short on exposition and instead stocks a great supply of action scenes that are truly a cinematic marvel. The battles are lengthy but never suffer from over-length...each second is as intense as the one preceding it. Then the conclusion to the film is wholly satisfying. Some people complain about "too many endings". Okay, so there were many instances when the film could have ended but instead moved onto something else. Fair enough, but I mean this trilogy has already gone for like 9 hours...they can't wrap everything up in a hurry and leave plot holes or stories that haven't been concluded. Instead of rushing everything, each second is lovingly created in all aspects: filming, editing, colour scheme, special effects, acting, scripting, etc. The best part is that this end remains faithful to Tolkien's original novel. Thus the fans needn't worry...for the novel has been properly transferred to the medium of film.

There are far too many pointless and vain arguments between the haters and the lovers of the trilogy. The bottom line is that we're all entitled to our own opinion, and we can't all agree. Thus labelling Peter Jackson's masterpiece as "overrated" only proves that you are too narrow-minded to accept the fact that you are just a component of the minority that disagrees with the majority.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the crowning achievement of the fantasy genre. In terms of a conventional fantasy with wizards, magic and mythical creatures, this is as good as a fantasy film can get! Since 2003 this film has been my favourite of all time. In the number of years since the first time I saw it, I have never seen a film that can top the quality and escapism of this masterpiece. All three Lord of the Rings films score top marks from me, which is a rarity when it comes to a trilogy or series. All three films are truly an unfathomably excellent work of art. J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy that was preserved on pages is now preserved on film for the audiences of the contemporary age. The Return of the King is one of the most finely tuned and cinematically perfect films ever made. Winner of 11 Oscars including Best Picture 2003, Best Director, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, Best Score among others. Also available in an extended edition that adds 50 minutes to the experience.

In the common tongue it reads "One Ring to Rule Them All. One Ring to Find Them. One Ring to Bring Them All and In The Darkness Bind Them."

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring marks the first ambitious film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's highly praised and acclaimed series of fantasy novels. Naturally, transferring one of the world's greatest fantasy novels to the screen would subsist as a daunting undertaking. For the die-hard fans of Tolkien's legendary novels, uncertainty was always an issue when small-time New Zealand born director Peter Jackson took the reigns. Although Jackson is an accomplished director who had previously helmed such films as Heavenly Creatures and Bad Taste, no-one knew for sure if the Kiwi was up to the task. The results are absolutely outstanding: a ripping yarn of a fantasy film rich in extraordinary production values, astounding special effects and never a dull moment.

The hordes of Tolkien fans must have breathed a collective sigh of relief when Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring thundered across cinemas worldwide and became an instant hit. The film grossed millions of dollars globally and was being met with cavalcades of acclaim including mountains of positive reviews. What's more - the film also scored 13 Oscar nominations and subsequently walked away with 4 wins. Although previous stabs at adapting Tolkien's novels to the big screen yielded embarrassing results, Jackson's prior experience and familiarity with the fantasy genre translated into a respectful, lavish, gorgeously-mounted production that breathed fresh cinematic life into Middle Earth.

This first instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy introduces the characters and establishes the story. An ancient ring of power was forged several centuries ago by the Dark Lord Sauron (Baker). Sauron's master ring, known as the One Ring, was filled with Sauron's sinister power and contains the capability to rule all peoples of Middle Earth. After an impressive opening montage that recaps the integral events of Middle Earth that have occurred thousands of years ago, the story then picks up at Hobbiton: a village that is largely inhabited by the Hobbit race.

After being lost for centuries, Sauron's One Ring is picked up by a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Holm). Fast forward a few decades and it's Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday. As the celebrations rage on, Bilbo should be happy but feels empty as his life is seemingly winding down and there are still a lot of things he wants to do before shuffling off. Bilbo departs Hobbiton, leaving the One Ring to be inherited by his nephew Frodo Baggins (Wood). Frodo soon learns that this ring is Sauron's master ring, and it must be immediately destroyed. Now Frodo must embark on a journey to the fires of Mount Doom. Only in the flames of that mountain can the ring be destroyed. If he fails and a resurrected Sauron reclaims the ring, he will bind the other 9 subservient rings to his will and cast a pall over the lands of Middle Earth.

The film's subtitle, The Fellowship of the Ring, is drawn from the milestone in Frodo's journey to Mount Doom that occurs: Frodo collects a band of companions who swear to aid in the quest and protect Frodo at all costs.

The film's easy-going first hour quickly transforms into a heart-stopping, exciting, powerful and violent saga that is truly difficult to find boring. Although audience reactions were mixed and many complained about the film's length, I frankly cannot imagine myself being bored.

To say that I loved this film is a gross understatement. Not only is Tolkien's novel one of the greatest books ever published, but Jackson's film adaptation now confidently places itself amongst the greatest movies of all time. This first instalment in Jackson's trilogy is a labour of love - he and his team were determined and worked endlessly to accomplish the best possible product. Jackson's first LOTR film is visually astounding, as well being outstanding in terms of audio and atmosphere.

While so many battles were created using computer technology, this is the blueprint of "epic". Over the years we've seen "big" films like Titanic and Braveheart, but this film simply dwarfs most movies in terms of sheer production size. Every facet of the movie has been done to perfection - every chair, every sword, every location. Why has it taken so many decades to finally get this ambitious project off the ground? Simply because the sheer scope and size of the production would cost far too much. Even in the age of advanced digital technology and big-budget epics, it took countless years to finish. It's refreshing to see so much determination to reach perfection. The descriptions of everything in Tolkien's novel are brilliantly matched by the ideal creative team.

Pale imitations like Harry Potter are a regularity. In the years succeeding this film's release the world was exposed to failed fantasy epics like Eragon, just to name one. The brilliance of Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy will always remain unmatched. To quote a music reviewer, this film is the "blueprint for a trillion inferior facsimiles." With the aid of contemporary filmmaking technology and the diverse New Zealand landscape, the visual result is simply impossible to match.

Special recognition must go to Howard Shore for composing the music that won an Oscar! I own the soundtrack CD and can't get enough of the music. It's exciting, intense, grand, passionate and even heart-breaking at times. This is the cherry on top.

The film is astronomically elevated by the marvellous cast. Elijah Wood makes an exceptional Frodo Baggins. This is an emotionally challenging role for the youthful actor, and nevertheless he nails it perfectly. Sean Astin plays the exigent role of Samwise Gamgee. The role called for an endless assortment of diverse emotions that Astin strikes faultlessly. Ian McKellen is utterly flawless as Gandalf the Grey. McKellen was acknowledged with an Oscar nomination for playing Gandalf with equal parts of underhanded humour and shrewdness. McKellen IS Gandalf and there is no doubt about that. Viggo Mortenson convincingly pulls off the dashing Aragorn: a ranger who becomes determined to help Frodo. Credit must also go to Sean Bean. I am a great admirer of Bean, and must mention his outstanding performance. His versatility is tested with this challenging role: like many other additions to the cast, a collection of emotions are pivotal. Bean passionately pulls off the role of Boromir.

I'm not even halfway through mentioning the cast! Orlando Bloom got his big break playing the loyal elf Legolas. This is the single role that Bloom was meant to play. The character is flat and emotionless...and this describes the nature of every single Orlando Bloom performance. John Rhys-Davis is sublime as the dwarf Gimli. This is one of the veteran actors included in the cast. I couldn't imagine anyone better suited. Finally there are great portrayals from Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan as two Hobbit companions, in addition to sublime elf portrayals from such actors as Hugo Weaving and Liv Tyler. The cast is truly a wonder to behold!

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring will forever be one of my absolute favourite movies! I still recall the first time I saw this movie: it was Boxing Day 2001 and my favourite uncle dragged me along to the cinema with my brother and cousin. We had booked tickets in advance and it's a good thing we did as there was a sign outside that strictly read "LOTR sold out!" Ever since that first screening I viewed, I subsequently saw it many more times at the cinema (about 5 more times, actually) as well as watching it at marathons and in the comfort of my own bedroom where I can watch the DVD.

Peter Jackson and his creative team have achieved a cinematic marvel! Even with characters and segments of the book being removed, this will remain the definitive cinematic vision of Tolkien's novel for many decades to come. One of the most anticipated cinematic events in history has finally transpired and in my opinion it is completely worth the wait! Some will love it, some will hate it: I will always be part of the former. Critics and audiences alike will always praise this film, and who's to quibble? It's a fine movie! Winner of 4 Oscars. Later released in an extended version.