Rating: 
Summary: GREAT movie
Review: This is one of THE greatest movies, and generations will remember it.
Rating:
Summary: One of the all time great movies!
Review: everything is said in the title.
Rating: 
Summary: If only it was more Tolkeinesque
Review: I watched this movie on the big screen four times and at home at least that many. It is a remarkable accomplishment. The entire production team should be commended for the effort. Director Peter Jackson's interpretation is much less subtle than Tolkein's own and also much 'darker' but some of this is the result of transferrance to the visual media.Visually I liked the movie a lot. The landscapes and battle scenes were spectacular. The Hobbits were portayed in a way that exceeded my expectations. The 'forced perspective' worked well for them. I'm so glad midgets or gnome-like renditions were not used. All the peoples were well done except two; the Orcs and Uruk-hai. Jackson went too far in making them disgusting. Sure they were a fallen race in Tolkein's world but they had personalities. Remember the power struggle between the competing Orcs that captured Merry and Pippin (part of the Two Towers)? 'Listening' to them talk in Tolkein's writings was fascinating. Watching and listening to Jackson's versions was revolting. I just wanted them to go away. Also Jackson made the Uruk-hai too big. They should have been smaller than Men, not bigger. My two favorite visual scenes were the Shire and Moria. Moria was great. The Balrog seemed perfect to me. The musical score to this film creates just the right mood. Excellent job. My two biggest disappointments were the Nazgul and Saruman. Visually the Nazgul are well done, esp. when the ring is worn and one enters their world. The problem is the caricaturish way in which they are employed. There is no subtlety or mystery; they should have all worn a sign saying "You are supposed to be afraid of me". The 'chase' scenes are awfully contrived, esp. the Race to the Fords, and Aragorn setting them all afire on Weathertop is ... apocryphal .... When I watch it on DVD I skip over these scenes. Since there is a lot of good material that was left out of (even the extended version) the film this is a shame. Given Peter Jackson's preference for 'dark/spooky' interpretations he could have done a great job with the Barrow Downs; oh well. Saruman is portrayed as an overt servant of Sauron in this movie. Maybe the film media is too hard to capture the actual role of Saruman, which was a renegade pursuing his own ends who more hurt than helped Sauron. The actors generally did a great job in their roles. Two I found especially good were the ones who played Sam and Boromir. I actually prefer the Boromir of the movie to the one in books, he is so well scripted and acted. Gandalf, Merry, Pippin, Elrond were well done. The only actor who I think was definitely miscast was Christopher Lee as Saruman. A perfect Saruman would have been the late Sir Alec Guiness though I'm sure there are others out there who have more charm than Lee. Lee is too one-dimensional in his acting, the character of Saruman isn't. The script is at least partly to blame for this. Overall this is a very good film with a good shelf life. Even Tolkein purists will get much enjoyment from it. It would be an impossible task to make a perfect film of the Lord of the Rings. This version does fall short but not by enough to be missed. 4 stars.
Rating:
Summary: The Best of the best
Review: This is the best movie I have ever seen!It's educational and violent,but mostly violent!
Why do people think that STUPID Harry potter is better?The Fellowship Of The Ring is the best movie of the year!
Rating:
Summary: best movie ever
Review: I'm not really into sci-fi/fantasy, but I've read all the LOTR books and I've seen the first two movies. I have nothing but praise for the first movie in the triology. It's got everything: excitement, adventure, romance, danger. Great movie.
Rating:
Summary: Way Too Cool
Review: I was never one who could get into the LOTR books and when the movie was released it held no interest for me to go. But I kept hearing such great things about the movie from two friends (thanks Jon and Becca). ...and I have to admit, the previews seemed pretty good. Last holiday season (2002), I did purchase the platinum series for my partner as a gift. I can't even begin to say how much we liked it. It is long - but it doesn't seem so. The 3+ hrs flew by and we were disappointed when it was over. We wanted to see more. ...and a lot more there is in this version. Maybe almost too much. It's a bit overwhelming. Looking forward to the 'Two Towers' coming out later this year - and the final movie at the theatres shortly thereafter. note: i have friends of friends who got this for their kids (who are both under 6yo). I'm not sure this is for them. Nothing horrible - but that young might give them baaaaad dreams.
Rating:
Summary: A cinema landmark
Review: I have read The Lord of the Rings, but that was back when I was a teenager, many moons ago, so much of the long and complex story has long since evaporated from my consciousness. From this vantage point, I simply do not care how closely Peter Jackson's adaptation hews to its source material. All I know is that The Fellowship of the Ring is obviously a landmark film, perhaps the best large-scale fantasy movie since Fritz Lang's Siegfried (based on a Germanic myth that Tolkien also drew on for LOTR, incidentally). Fellowship was clearly a labor of love for everyone involved in its making, and it shows in everything from the art direction and set design to the cinematography, writing, acting and, especially, Jackson's impassioned directing. It's surprising to read that Jackson says he prefers the theatrical cut, because the extended DVD is clearly superior, fleshing out several small points and adding several wonderful scenes that, while not strictly necessary to the narrative, add texture and feeling to the film as a whole. Very definitely the choice to make over the original version DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Skillfully made and well-performed
Review: This first installment of Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is visually impressive, well-acted, and technically accurate. I cannot agree with those who insist the film is truly in the "spirit" that Tolkien intended. More on that in a moment. In terms of the story, the basic thread follows closely to Tolkien - the One Ring has been discovered (in the prequel book "the Hobbit," filmed as an extended flashback), which the bad guys need to rule the world. That it was found by a Hobbit is fortunate, as they are too pure of heart to be immediately subsumed by the power of the Ring. To bring peace and order back to the world, a group of adventurers (the titular Fellowship) sets out to take the ring to the one place it can be destroyed, deep in the heart of the evil one's kingdom. The members of the fellowship are well-acted, especially by some of my old favourites like Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Sean Bean (Boromir), and John Rhys Davies (Gimli). In fact, the entire cast performs their characters as you picture them from reading the book (except Blanchett's Galadrial - see below). The sets and locales are very reminiscent of those described in the book (Rivendell seems a little crowded, but never mind). The climax of Book 1 - Aragorn and the Hobbits battling the Ringwraiths on Weathertop - is the highlight of the film, in its pacing, action, and sheer eariness. Naturally, when adapting a 500 page book, much is lost. Jackson makes the right choices for the most part - Tom Bombadil is gone, as are the Hobbits' journey with the Wood Elves, Frodo's Birthday party, etc. In fact, it's detrimental to the film that Jackson did not cut out more - for example, there was no reason to show the failed crossing/snowstorm on Mt. Caradhras. Further, the movie invests too much time introducing Bilbo and setting up his relationship with Gandalf, at the expense of developing the relationship between Frodo, Merry, and Pippen (the Frodo/Sam relationship is fine). Likewise, the important "interracial" Gimli/Legolas relationship never develops. In my opinion, Jackson makes two more significant errors in terms of the feel/spirit of Tolkien. First is the unfortunate portrayal of Galadriel: the entire Fellowship (even Gimli!) is supposedly taken with her charm, patience, and wisdom. As portrayed in the film, she is aloof and intimidating, certainly not Tolkien's intention. Secondly, Frodo's decision at the end of the film is made with the consent, even encouragement, of Aragorn. This implicitly undermines the courage and independence of Frodo as Tolkien meant it to be - in the book, Aragorn does not know of Frodo's decision, nor even Frodo's fate, which colours much of the action in Book 3 (the first part of "The Two Towers"). This 4-DVD set is truly impressive. I have not listened to all 4 (!) commentaries yet, nor have I managed to wade through all of the 6+ hours of documentary material, covering all aspects of the making of the film. The parts I've seen/heard, however, are very interesting and informative, if occasionally repetative. It is obvious that a great deal of effort has been put into making these films look like Middle Earth, for which I applaud the filmakers. A little more effort in the interrelationships between the characters would have made this film better, but you can't have it all, I guess!
Rating: 
Summary: way too long
Review: I just do not get it, why people like this movie so much. It is way way way too long, I mean come on people. People give this movie too much money and way too much credit. I was dragged to see this with my family. To anyone reading this, do not see this movie.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic Fantasy Epic
Review: This is one of my favorite movies, based on one of my favorite books. I love the 2nd disc and the effects are realistic as heck. It is a great buy. I'm confused why it hasn't won Best Picture. Tip- get the Widescreen. It shows more than the Fullscreen.
| 
