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

"Good luck to you, you Godless murderers. "

Based on the novel by Daniel Carney, The Wild Geese is a classic British action-adventure movie which follows the tried-and-true formula successfully mined in such films as The Dirty Dozen and The Guns of Navarone. It's a remarkable combination of male bonding, military stereotypes, detailed briefings, last-minute snafus, double-crosses and (above all) epic, violent shootouts. Yet this venture is also inherently British, and it's all the better for it.

The plotline is your usual men-on-a-mission tale with a few extra twists. High-powered banker Edward Matherson (Granger) hires a faded mercenary named Allan Faulkner (Burton) to assemble a band of mercenaries to execute an assignment in Africa. Their mission is to rescue imprisoned former African leader Julius Limbani (Ntshona) who's critically ill and due for execution. After the recruits endure a bout of boot camp training, they're dropped into the bush. The mercs are able to pull off their mission without a hitch at first, but then things get ugly...

While the brilliance of The Wild Geese is partly attributable to the high action quotient, the strong characterisations are perhaps the film's most enduring element. In the same vein as The Dirty Dozen, the film takes its time with the characters - prior to the action, an enjoyable collection of scenes are provided which depict the soldiers on their home turf as the determinedly over-the-top Faulkner assembles his team. Reginald Rose's screenplay cleverly varies the motivations of the mercenaries; some are in it to support their high living, while others are aging soldiers seeking one final great adventure. Some believe in the cause, while others simply need the cash to pay rent. This character development capably elicits sympathy for what would otherwise be a pretty unscrupulous bunch of mercenaries. The pace rapidly picks up once the squad are shipped to Africa for training. Tension builds inexorably as the fastidiously laid out plans begin to work far too smoothly. From there, the film alternates between daft but engaging action sequences, and scenes of heavy exposition. Smartly, the script doesn't ignore or condone the inherent moral contradictions of mercenary life. The characters are given the chance to discuss, criticise and defend their chosen profession (and, in one case, racism).

The direction by Andrew V. McLaglen is brilliantly taut; the film only occasionally bogs during the 130-minute runtime. Once The Wild Geese shifts into its third act, the action sequences are frequent and fantastic. Despite the fact that this actioner was made in the 1970s, it manages to rival action set-pieces in contemporary military pictures. Certainly, the gore factor isn't astronomical (à la Saving Private Ryan) but a lot of blood is spilt and the body count is phenomenal. With the assistance of John Glen, McLaglen has created skilful set-pieces; from the tense covert infiltration to the full scale battles. This builds up to the excellent climactic action scene that transcends the conventions of the genre with its gritty nature and the lack of mercy shown towards the film's most amiable characters. All of this is accompanied by the appropriately militaristic themes conjured up by the film's composer Roy Budd. The score suits the movie perfectly during the exciting gunfights, as well as the more emotional moments when subtler cues are employed.

Several of Roger Moore's colleagues (from the James Bond films he starred in) also worked on The Wild Geese: Maurice Binder designed the title sequence, Bob Simmons had a hand in the stunts, Syd Cain took care of production design, and the aforementioned John Glen was both editor and second unit director. The cinematic techniques can be perceived as dated, but at the time they were fairly cutting-edge, and this should be respected. Besides, the filmmaking is not dated to the point that it's distracting. Alas, there are a few problems with this movie - some sloppy dialogue, an overlong runtime, a few contrived endangerment scenarios, and a sense of predictability & unoriginality that can't be eluded throughout the second half.

Another great joy of The Wild Geese is witnessing so many fine British & Irish stars and character actors gathered together in one film. Three acting giants of British cinema took the lead roles here. Heading the list is Richard Burton as the cynical Colonel Faulkner. Expectedly, Burton is superb; dominating the screen at all times and attacking dialogue with great gusto. Richard Harris as Rafar Janders is equally exceptional; he's a remarkable counterpoint to the apparent immorality of Burton's Faulkner, and he's the emotional core of the film. Completing the trio is none other than Sir Roger Moore as Shawn Flynn. Back in 1978, Moore was in the midst of his seven-film run as James Bond, but the actor wisely brings Flynn to life with a much harder edge (as evident with the character's introduction - Flynn forces a drug kingpin to eat heroin laced with strychnine at gunpoint). German actor Hardy Krüger is another fitting addition to the Wild Geese roster in the pivotal role of South African Lt. Pieter Coetze. He submits a remarkable performance.

Interestingly, there's a key indicator of this being a '70s film - the almost complete lack of woman; something which probably would not be allowed by head office in the 21st Century. The top-billed actress of this movie is Rosalind Lloyd (producer Euan Lloyd's daughter) in a two-scene role as a croupier in love with Shawn Flynn.

The Wild Geese is a classic slice of '70s action-adventure, with a cast of UK movie legends, some memorable dialogue and a plethora of spectacular action set-pieces. When you're in the mood for a high-calibre, top-notch Brit action film, you can't do better than this. As the saying goes; "They don't make 'em like this anymore!"

"I wanna go home..."

Speaking from a thematic perspective, Moon is the sci-fi masterpiece that The Island could have been had Michael Bay not opted to turn it into a brainless action extravaganza. In many ways, Moon (the directorial debut of Duncan Jones - otherwise known as David Bowie's son) is an affectionate throwback to an age of classic, cerebral sci-fi motion pictures (such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner); it's invested in areas of storytelling patience and hefty psychological investigation rarely explored in an era of Star Trek and Transformers. It's instead a simple story rich in ideas that explores several areas familiar to sci-fi fans: the concept of artificial intelligence, where bioethics is heading, and whether prolonged isolation can cause psychosis.

Moon kicks off with an advertisement for Lunar Industries: Earth's #1 provider of clean energy. This energy comes in the form of a radioactive isotope which is mined on the moon. Sam Bell (Rockwell) is the sole employee at the company's base on the dark side of the moon where he is responsible for supervision and routine maintenance of the mining equipment. As the film opens, Sam is nearing the end of his three-year contract. Due to a mechanical failure, there is no direct link between the lunar station and Earth; Sam can only send and receive recorded messages in order to communicate with his wife, daughter and bosses. An intelligent computer called GERTY (voiced by Spacey) provides Sam's only form of direct communication. But with only very little human interaction, and all of it indirect, he feels that three years is far too long to be isolated. Soon enough, Sam makes a series of discoveries that alter his understanding of his job, his life, the universe, and everything.

The less said about the meatier parts of the plot, the better. Without divulging spoilers, Moon eventually transforms into a morality tale that questions the notion of what's real and what isn't; what it means to be alive and what it means to be human. These questions propel the film towards an unsettling third act which suggests what might happen to humankind if certain technologies were fuelled by corporate greed. More importantly, as the questions pile up, the tension slowly and methodically builds...even after Sam unearths his most shocking discovery. Like Sam, a viewer will spend most of the latter half of Moon attempting to figure out what exactly is going on.

Moon exhibits a lucid influence by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the nods are both frequent and uncamouflaged. Certain shots recall 2001, there's an effects sequence set to a piece of classical music, and there's the computer GERTY; a virtual clone of HAL (the nuances and intonations of Kevin Spacey's vocal performance even seem visibly influenced by Douglas Rain's voicework for 2001). For emotions, GERTY displays a smiley face that turns into a frowny face or even a crying face every so often, like the cheapest special effect the filmmakers could conceive of. But it works - and this is one of the many examples of the filmmakers' ability to make the most of their meagre budget. To create a science fiction movie with only $5 million would be difficult, yet Jones pulls it off with aplomb. Moon doesn't feature groundbreaking CGI, but it nevertheless remains enthralling from a visual standpoint. An incredibly believable lunar landscape has been constructed - and when the action shifts to the surface of the moon, there's a flawless blend of practical effects and subtle CGI. Sam's living quarters possess a familiar futuristic design that's bestowed with a realistic, lived-in quality almost foreign to this brand of sci-fi (notice, for instance, how filthy GERTY is, and that the areas Sam inhabits seem worn). Sedate camerawork courtesy of cinematographer Gary Shaw as well as Clint Mansell's transcendent, utterly haunting piano score also compound the sense of unearthly isolation.

Director Duncan Jones (formerly known as Zowie Bowie - yeah, I'd have changed my name too) has previously directed commercials. This is his first feature film and it's a promising one. For a film debut, Moon is a surprisingly ambitious effort since sci-fi is a route rarely taken by neophyte directors tackling projects without a huge budget or studio backing. By addressing intimate subject matter and keeping the film's setting mostly within the confines of the moon-base, however, Jones is freed from a majority of the warped conventions that typically define mainstream science fiction. Moon is not Star Wars-inspired space opera; it is provocative, intelligent stuff that takes the elements of "science" in science fiction seriously. If there's a flaw, it's that the film wants to say more than it has time to. In a 90-minute timeframe, the film attempts to make comments about corporate greed, the human mind, the consciousness of technology and other human advances which can't be discussed without heading into Spoiler Land. While these notes are hit well, the film tends to hit them too fast, leaving an audience to contemplate and realise it all only after they've finished watching it. Important plot points are revealed in the blink of an eye as well, and while you attempt to put it all together, the story progresses on-screen.

A terrific performance submitted by Sam Rockwell keeps a viewer caring throughout the narrative. Because there are virtually no other human characters in the film, much of the success of Moon rested solely on the shoulders of Rockwell. And it works! Rockwell (a character actor who has featured in such recent films as The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Matchstick Men, but has not yet managed to break through into genuine Hollywood stardom) deserves to be an Oscar contender given the weight of the material he manages to nail here - the actor delivers an affecting and credible portrayal of a loner who yearns for home, with later plot developments allowing him to show different facets of the role. Not only does Rockwell keep an audience rapt (much like Tom Hanks did for much of Cast Away), but he also puts a human face on some hefty themes.

While Moon begins like a hodgepodge of various other sci-fi flicks, director Jones and screenwriter Nathan Parker are able to breathe new life into these familiar elements; creating something unique, fresh, mesmerising and exhilarating. The conclusion is perhaps a bit too tidy, but it gives the story a sense of narrative resolution while also suggesting that larger issues are a long way from being resolved.

Moon is truly a contemporary horror movie which eschews a wearisome slasher mentality to explore the nature of identity and the perversion of human life through scientific advances and corporate skulduggery. It asks proper, stimulating questions without being cold, aloof, pretentious or even remotely boring. And it works as all the best sci-fi does - by employing special effects to complement a genuine, thought-provoking human narrative. It's not that there's anything wrong with escapist entertainment like Star Trek, but Moon is closer to the expectations of die-hards when they hear the term "sci-fi". It's very different from glossy sci-fi blockbusters - and far more satisfying.

"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.