Rating: 
Summary: Subtitles
Review: I would like to know why this DVD Special Edition don't have subtitles in any other language than english?
Rating: 
Summary: we need fordo&his fellowship in our live
Review: i would like to start by saying it is the most fantastic film i ever seen in my live they did a great efforts in this wonderful picture specially elijah wood i think he began his future but it is a long film but it is worth the wait&i do not like the scary scenens in it but i adore the most lovley wizard gandalf& fardo friends& the brave fellowship specially boromir and i am waiting to see the end of the story .
Rating:
Summary: Here is a story that will break your heart
Review: I would like to start with a quote by C.S. Lewis: "Here are beauties that will pierce like a sword or burn like cold iron. Here is a story that will break your heart."I saw this movie on opening day, and I have not been able to write about it until now because I was so shocked. This film picked me up in the first few minutes and carried me along with it. I experienced everything the characters went through; my whole system went on overload. Before I start nitpicking, however, I would like to state two facts. 1. If you go expecting to see the movie be just like the book, you're going to hate it. A movie CANNOT be a book, and a book CANNOT be a movie. It is perfectly impossible, unless you can make an apple an orange and vice versa. 2. This is only act 1 of a three act drama. Good. That said, we can continue. This is a wonderful movie, period. Since a film consists of three elements: background, characters, and effects, I shall cover all 3, including complaints I have seen. The first is background, and I'll put the script into this topic. New Zealnd is Middle Earth. I was simply awed by the closesness of the two. The Shire is beautiful; it has that lush, green, homey sense Tolkien has in his books. Rivendell was also neat. It demonstrated nicely the collision of two cultures, Elven and Man, for Elrond was both. It is mostly Elvish, for example everthing is outdoors. However, there are very human elements as well, like warm beds and rich indoor decorations. Moria is suitably grand, yet morbid. Lorien is beautiful with lots of trees, and I liked the way there were so many lamps lit everywhere at night. Isengard is cold and impersonal, and the mining is one of the best parts of the film.
I don't see why everyone says this movie has a bad script. It is not Tolkien, but Tolkien's dialogue works much better to the page than the reel. However, statements are taken right from the book, like "shortcut to mushrooms," "...if by my life and death I can protect you, I will." "Fool of a Took," etc. Some of it is missing, true. I would have liked to hear the part about looking fair and feeling foul. But, all in all, it works. Next, and most importantly, are the characters. Don't forget that there are many, many characters in this story, and not all will be fleshed out in the first act. Frodo is done admirably well by Elijah Wood. The scene after the balrog brings tears to my eyes, as when he is trying to slip away from the fellowship. Sam is of the same caliber. He is not dog-like, yet the message is clear. He will do anything, even suffer through a journey worse than death for Frodo. Merry and Pippen are simply hilarious. I admired the script a lot for this, for in such a dark movie humor is almost impossible. However, it is done and done gracefully and successfully. Trust me, these two will steal your heart.
Aragorn is a tough and silent ranger, and I know we'll see his character grow throughout the story. I was dissapointed with Legolas and Gimli's lack of time, but I think that Aragorn and Boromir needed center stage for obvious reasons. I would bet money that the Elf and Dwarf will be main characters in the next film. For all of you fans, Legolas does walk on snow! It is a sight to see.
I have heard people say that Boromir was freaky. I disagree. For me, he was one of the most well-developed characters in the first film. He is a brave and courageous soldier who is tempted through his good intentions. We see his kindness when he teaches the little hobbits to fight, but we see his pride when he tries to seize the Ring from Frodo. In the end, in one of the best scenes, he redeems himself. He fights like a man possessed to save his friends (and his soul?), and in one of the most heart-rending scenes in the film, the fighting Uruk-Hai finally get the better of him. (It's not easy, trust me!)
Gandalf, too, was amazing. Among the Hobbits he is a nice grandfatherly old man, but watch out! He will show his ferocity when faced with Saruman or a balrog. Saruman is also very neat, a very hateful villain who goes power-hungry.
Some people say that Elrond is too mean, but I found him only stern and a little fierce. Elrond was these, for he was not in an easy position throughout the whole book. Galadriel was interesting, to say the least. I am not sure if I liked her interpretation all in all, but I think that the mirror scene where she morphs into that thing is a perfectly valid interpretation, for all of you who are complaining. It might not be yours, but the book does say that she grows terrible in the books. I rather liked that aspect, even though I am not quite sure if I agree it was that drastic. Arwen's role is small, so don't worry about any Xenarwen. She is onscreen for about 10 minutes total.
The orcs are disgusting, the hobbits are beautifully simple, and the Black Riders are terrifying. Lastly, there are effects. I will be the first to tell you I am no computer guru, but, as the average Elf on the street, I can honestly say that I didn't think "oh, effects" when I saw them. Indeed, I didn't even notice! (Big relief after Star Wars E. I, I can assure you.) The cave troll was an ugly troll, and the balrog is awesome, even if it does not agree with your own personal interpreation. The size differences are seamless. Not once did I get jarred back to reality. Frodo really looked 3'6. Gollum, though we only see his face, outline, or hands, looks like a flesh and blood creep. If I didn't know through common sense that one cannot do a balrog any other way, I would not have known that CGI exists in this story. Also, I liked the zoomy cameras. Battles are hectic and confused things, and that technique helped to further the feeling that you are there. I suppose we could have seen the conventional overhead shots, but is that what, say, Aragorn saw as he was fighting for his life? Concerning Gandalf and Saruman's duel: I think it is a valid interpretation. We don't know all that happened, and I'm sure that the two wizards didn't simply talk over coffee. The scene doesn't last very long anyways. I found it a good way to show how powerful Saruman was. He overpowered Gandalf pretty quick. Keep in mind, that in The Two Towers, the tables will turn, and I think the contrast will help understanding. I know this film moved faster than the books. There is a reason for that, I think. The book was, with the exceptions of the Shire, Rivendell, and Lorien, a continuous battle or chase. The events in the film were tightened up to ooze that very feeling. My only complaint is Lorien is hardly a place of rest. Oh well. I know that parts did have to be sped up, even though more time there would have been nice. Yes, this movie has its faults. They are very small ones, thank goodness. However, I don't think I can single any out until I see at least "The Two Towers," because until then I cannot say for sure what was lacking. One cannot honestly critique Les Miserables, for example, after only the first act. The story has just begun! My only big complaint is that I have to wait a whole year to see the next film.
Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: I would tell you to read the book before you go see it because you will like it a lot better. It is the best movie i have seen in a very LONG time. It has no cusing and no sex in it. It might be to evil for small kids but other then that is it really good.
Rating:
Summary: Oh, you know this movie is the greatest!!!
Review: I wrote a serious movie review for the extended edition of Lord of the Rings, so I'm just going to let this review stand as an exclamation of how great The Lord of the Rings really is. THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING IS ONE OF THE GREATEST MOVIES EVER MADE. THE LORD OF THE RINGS IS THE GREATEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN. THE TWO TOWERS IS ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDING. IN FACT, THE LORD OF THE RINGS IS BEYOND CRITICISM. IT'S PERFECT. Whew, ok. I would apologize about that, but I shall not, because it's how I really feel. The Lord of the Rings has touched my heart in a way I can't exlpain. The score by Howard Shore is so beautiful. It makes the grand caverns of Moria all the more wondrous, and it justly expresses the spectacle of The Fellowship. The Balrog! Oh, the balrog! He's so beautiful and hideous and scary. Peter Jackson has hit the jackpot! The visual effects in this movie are amazing. The performances are great. Ian McKellen as Gandalf... PERFECT! Christopher Lee as Saruman... PERFECT. Gimli, Boromir, Frodo, Sam, everyone is all cast perfectly. I love this movie. Let that be helpful to you. This movie will not disappoint you. And the lesson in this movie - stay away from power, stay away from industrialism! Love the earth!!! Love Tolkien's work!!! I love the Lord of the Rings!!! Go watch it now!!! Then you'll understand what I'm talking about. I'm not crazy!!! AAHHHHH!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful
Review: I'd buy it at Best Buy next time. Cheaper and faster.
Rating:
Summary: FANTASTIC MOVIE MAKING!!
Review: i'd forgotten that film was an art form, especially since hollywood churns out so much brainless garbage; however, THIS is no lame excuse for a movie... everything is immaculately conceived, produced, presented, and edited. the artistry of the set/costume/prop designers is overwhelming. the attention to deatil is enriching, and the cast do marvelous work with a fabulous epic. the movie doesn't follow the book perfectly, but i actually thought the revisions made the story more not less clear. the books can drone on and on, so it was awesome to get a feel for the emotion and excitement -- perhaps because we live in such a visually centered culture, but i needed to SEE the story to finally fall into it. this move is amazing -- an event actually! anyone who can't see that this is a wonderful movie is either looking at it from a perspective that i simply can't understand or WAY too picky. tell the tolkein heads that give this less than 5 stars to do better than this if they think they can. an instant classic
Rating: 
Summary: About what I expected
Review: I'd just like to have it on record that there are some people out here who don't think that The Fellowship of the Ring was a good film. I think it was badly written, badly directed, and highly overrated. Peter Jackson may be a great fan of the Lord of the Rings, but his view of the book must be very different to mine.
To establish my LOTR credentials, I've read the book many times, plus all the drafts and variants as edited by J.R.R. Tolkien's son Christopher. Does this make my criticism any more worthy than anyone else's? No; but I am a fan of the book who doesn't like what has been done to it in the film adaption.
I accept that books have to be adapted to some extent to meet the demands of a visual, rather than written, storytelling style. And for the first half hour or so of this film I thought it was pretty good. Unfortunately, it all went downhill from there.
The production team do deserve praise for the locations, sets, and art designs. The casting was so-so. However, these were overshadowed for me by a host of other problems.
The main problem I found was pacing. This film was so slow and boring, I found myself sitting there grimly thinking "I know the point this has to get to . . . how much longer can it possibly be?" Jackson spent way too long on lingering shots of the landscape, Elijah Wood's face, people hanging from precipices and drowning, activities at Isengard, and pointless fight/action sequences that weren't even in LOTR. The result is that plenty of time was wasted that could have been used to explain and ground the narrative better, or to establish the characters. I know the story very well, and it seemed to me that the film was difficult to follow, with no real sense given of how vitally important the activities of the fellowship were, or even of how much time was passing. Where Jackson did change the story for his film (in plot, characters, etc.), it seems to me that he did so to no good purpose; none of the changes (of which there are a great deal) actually made Fellowship of the Ring a better story or a film. It's like Jackson can't see the wood for the trees. His film is more like a collection of elements and vignettes than a coherent story that has real respect for its source material.
The fact that someone dared to make a live-action film of LOTR does not automatically mean that what they made was a good film. I'm very tired of all the hype. It's unjustified. And as for all the merchandising . . . I don't think I'm unjustified in thinking that J.R.R. Tolkien must be turning in his grave.
Rating:
Summary: Why you should wait before you buy DVD's
Review: I'd like to say this edition, and the movie is excellent, but it's living proof to wait to buy DVD's. All my friends had bought the original edition first, and then i just got this one. Same thing goes with T2
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie, but JRRT it ain't
Review: I'd read the books who knows how many times since I discovered them in the early '70s. I still go back to them when I get a whiff of Mordor in this world's winds. But, I knew the movie wouldn't ever measure up to my mental and emotional vision of Middle Earth. So I went, just to see a movie. On that ground, it was superb. I enjoyed the movie and so did my 7 kids. And even though I had read the Trilogy to them some years back, two have turned to read them on their own.
|
