Rating: 
Summary: If you think "Harry Potter" is too long...
Review: Okay, for starters, NO, I HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK! So I'm sure those of you who are devoted to the book will think I am nuts when I say that "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship..." is way, way, way too long at 3-plus hours. Is it interesting? Yes. Does it have fantastic acting? Yes, especially by Sir Ian McKellan, who brings sparks of excitement to the movie every time he's in a scene (Viggo Mortensen runs a close second). Is it an epic story? Yes. But this film would have much better (and I bet would get more repeat business) if at least 45 minutes had been cut. The scenes with Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler are unnecessary (at least for this installment; I'm guessing their characters pop up again in the trilogy. Otherwise, what was the point of putting them in the film at all?!), and the Fellowship's trek (while at times exciting) goes on for way too long. I kept waiting for the end credits to roll, only to discover that, no, the fellowship is forging on to yet another place. By the end of the movie, I was a bit jealous of the Fellowship lads because, with all the treking they did, their butts - unlike mine - were not asleep! It's not a bad movie, but wait for it to come out on video when you can watch it in the comforts of your own home.
Rating: 
Summary: I was so wrong: The best movie I've ever seen
Review: Okay, I admint it: I was terribly wrong. The Lord of the Rings is one of the best flicks I've ever seen. The changes are good, the effects wonderful... it is nearly perfect. Peter Jackson is a genius, and I am an idiot.
Rating: 
Summary: First movie I ever walked out of.....
Review: Okay, I admit I'm not the most ardent Tolkien fan. I've read one or two of the books in this series, but many years ago.....After the first hour and fifteen minutes of this film, I was impressed by the special effects, and amazed that despite those effects, I couldn't sit and watch any more. There were dark figures chasing little hobbits. There was a wizard using magic in battles. There was one LONG background sequence. And yet, I felt like I was watching a home movie where someone pointed a videocamera out the window of their car while crossing an endless field of wheat. There was nothing of any real interest. The characters weren't developed at all, and I had no good idea of their motivations. I know in many films you have to wade through some introduction before things start to become clearer, but that's usually not more than 30 minutes into the film. All I got out of the film was a bit more than an hour and fifteen minutes of agony. I actually had a much better time spending the next hour and a half window-shopping downtown...in the pouring rain!
Rating:
Summary: Should satisfy even hardcore LOTR fans
Review: Okay, I admit it! I'm a Lord of the Rings geek! There! I've said it. Whew. I've read the original LOTR books so many times that I've gone through three printings (starting with a 1960's and going to the most recent printings with artistry by Alan Lee). I feel somewhat qualified (that's a large word here: 'qualified') to review and rate this movie. So here we go: The story is that of Frodo Baggins and his quest to get rid of the one ruling Ring of power that was forged by Sauron, the Dark Lord. The Fellowship of the Ring is formed once a small band of Hobbits reach Rivendell (run by a half elf lord named Elrond). Here Frodo, Samwise, Merry and Pippin (the Hobbits) are joined by Gandalf (a wizard), Gimli (a dwarf), Legolas (an Elf), Aragorn (a Ranger formerly known as Strider), and Boromir (a man). They set out to help Frodo on his quest to throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom and along the way are thrown into every fiery mess one could imagine (or maybe not). At the end, the Fellowhip is in a shambles but that's no surprise considering the power of this Ring: it turns all around it to greed and dishonor. The movie itself. I'm sure that there will be much talk about what is lacking in the movie that was in the book. But one cannot expect every facet of a book to enter into a screenplay. The movie would have been 13 hours long then! So let's take a brief glimpse at what was lacking and why: #1: In the book it is Bilbo's AND Frodo's birthday party (they have the same B-Day), but in the movie it it just Bilbo's. This is not surprising since later, there is no mention of Frodo coming into his 'inheritance' because he was coming of age (33 to Bilbo's Eleventy-One). No big deal there. #2: Some characters are completely omitted for times sake and this was not a problem since they didn't play pivotal roles later. Notably there is no Labelia who buys Bag-End, no showing of old man Maggot and his mushroom farm, no Glorfindel meeting up with the travelers on the road to Rivendell. There are more but I will dive no further into it. These omissions were acceptable and expected in my mind. #3: The development of Old Bill, the Horse that faithfully lugs their wares (up til he is presumed dead at the entrance to the Mines of Moria) is never brought forward. Oh well. #4: Galadriel gives only one gift (to Frodo) when the Fellowship leaves Lothlorien. No surprise there since the light of Galadriel will be used later in future movies. But the gifts given to the other members of the Fellowship is never addressed. Not surprising since they don't play a role later. Now. What was good? Well....almost everything. There is something in the movie for everyone. There are small tidbits that Mr. Jackson (the director) left in for LOTR diehard fans that I absolutely loved. Notably, during Bilbo's birthday party you'll see Bilbo telling a story to children-hobbits about his adventures during the original, 'The Hobbit,' when he meets up with Trolls and they're turned to stone by the sun. Then, later in the movie, if you watch closely, you'll see the Fellowship hiking by large boulders....what was that out of the corner of my eye? That looked somewhat like a statue of a...a...troll?
Also, when Galadriel holds all of the Fellowship with her gaze there is no hint as to what exactly is going on there, but those who are the diehard fans will know, won't we. I might have a bit of LOTR blasphemy here, but I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Jackson's development of the friendship of Frodo and Samwise (even better than Tolkien himself did! Blasphemy!). The film is completely satisfying in my humble opinion. The shrinking down of the Hobbits and Gimli is masterfully done. The sets are dark and mysterious, just as I'd pictured them (for this is a dark story). The first ten minutes of the movie is crucial to those who've never read the LOTR books, since it gives a detailed history of Middle Earth. And the movie leaves us wanting more. The worst part, for me, will be waiting another year for the next installment in the excellent series. I can hardly wait!
Rating:
Summary: Big screen or small, Peter Jackson is a genius.
Review: Okay, I admit it: I'm a big old, giant size, gooberific fanboy geek, and once I saw the second of Peter Jackson's LOTR movies, I rushed to the nearest computer terminal and bought the deluxe 4-DVD "remix" version of the first film. Man, am I glad I did. This film, in all it's various manifestations, is a fascinating study in how new media have adapted to meet different audiences. When I saw the first film in the theatres, I thought, "WOW.", but I still felt some nagging doubts about what I had seen. The film was spectacular, but felt like it was missing a little bit here, and a little bit there. Well, it turnsout that all the things I was looking for were in the film, but were skillfully nipped out to make the big screen version a physically-endurable event. The other, longer, more nuanced film is one that was made to be seen at one's own pace in the comfort of our hobbit-like little homes. So there it is: the little links in the plot, the extra shadings of character, the elf-y stuff, the snug splendor of the Shire, the extra connective tissue that makes this film move along at a slower, more deliberate keel, and which makes all nagging doubts vanish like some subtle magical spell. Both versions make sense -- the theatrical release felt just about right -- my attention didn't wander, and my [bottom] didn't hurt when I headed for home. Then the DVD version felt more satisfying and has all the geely behind-the-scenes stuff that I'm still watching now. Plus, it had additional Liv Tyler footage: I'm in heaven!
Rating:
Summary: Heads Up to All Those Who Hated LOTR
Review: Okay, I respect that not everyone will like the movie - I get that. I know that there have been movies my friends have liked that I really hate, but I just have to say a few things to those people who wrote the one star reviews: 1) I notice that most of these people have not read the books. Now although I feel you didn't have to read the books to love the movie, I understand that that may play a factor - I beg you to read the books, and then pass judgement again 2) Also for those who have not read the books: Do you realize how incredibly idiotic you sound saying "Wow, I didn't like the ending, it was like a book with its ending missing" This is not supposed to be the end, it's supposed to be a CLIFFHANGER. There are TWO MORE MOVIES. If you didn't know that walking in, did you like JUST hear about LOTR or what?! 3) For those who have read the books: I know that I, too, would have liked them to include every last little detail, but you CAN. NOT. Pick about every. single. last. little. thing. The movie would be a week long. Who cares if Frodo doesn't cross the bridge alone? Why does it matter that Arwen gets a bigger part? The only difference that makes is more cash in Liv Tyler's pocket, and less in everyone else's. Personally, I thought Frodo's faster illness under the wound of the sword made the evil seem more real, and it didn't matter that Arwen had to ride him across the river. Tom Bombadill was not the most pivital and moving character in the book, nor does he have incredible impact upon being taken out. Once again, to those who now hate me: I respect your opinions, just have a broader scope before judging.
Rating:
Summary: Better than the theatrical version!!
Review: Okay, I thought I was hard core LotR BEFORE this version of the film. THIS IS THE ONE VERSION THAT TRULY CAPTURES EVERYTHING YOU WOULD EVER WANT OUT OF THE BOOK!! (Except for Tom Bombadil, regretable but nessecary) There is some great added scenes and some extended stuff that I really liked (Aragorn getting knocked on his butt by the Hobbits and Boromir getting thrown across Balin's tomb are amoung my top five) There is also a larger sense of humanity in the Fellowship (even in the two more emotionally cold characters, Gimli and Legolas(sigh)) The beginning part about Hobbits also makes you fall even more in love with the Shire than the original. Trust me, if you REALLY want to be considered a true fan, GET THIS DVD!
Oh also the bonus features are awesome. The cast commentary is hilarious with Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd. Book to Vision disc gives a little more insight to Tolkien's life and Vision to Reality has some cool story boards and editing features that are fun to play with.
Rating:
Summary: Oh...boy....
Review: Okay, listen to me....do not see this film.
Really, do not see this film. BECAUSE...if you do....you'll end up watching the most astounding, beautiful, superbly acted fantasy adventure film EVER. The world of Middle Earth in this film is so vividly portrayed and so gorgeous to watch and experience that you'll swear you were in the film. And the acting, the casting...wow. Everyone is just so...GOOD! Honest. And the block-busting length of 3 hours for this film will fly by so fast that you'll wonder where the time went. By the end of the film, I was begging for more. (What? That can't be all! Please, just another 10 minutes, pleeeease!!!) So why shouldn't you see this film? Because if you love movies as much as I do, it will drive you CRAZY to have to wait another 12 months for the next installment of the Lord of the Rings. I absolutely fell in love with this film, and I haven't even read any of the 3 books (ok, well, I did read the Hobbit about 15 years ago...) and I usually find fantasy films to be weak (remember the Dungeon and Dragons film a year ago?). So, I'm just trying to save you from insanity, that's all. For those who are old enough to remember Empire Strikes Back back in 1980, remember the anguish and agony of waiting THREE years for the next Star Wars film to find out what happened next? Well, same thing here. At least it's only one year, but those days will take a loooong time. Perhaps this may even be blasphemous to say, but I think the Lord of the Ring films will, in time, match if not surpass the Star Wars movies in popularity. Frankly, this film is better than any of the Star Wars films, and I love those films, so I know what I'm talking about. And Harry Potter? Hah....doesn't even compare, and I love the Harry Potter books, too! So please, spare yourself the misery and don't see this breath-taking movie. Of course, you won't listen to me and you'll be GLAD you didn't...but you'll also be soooo sad (another year to wait? Noooooo.....)
Rating: 
Summary: 3 hours and no Tom Bombadil??? Explanation please!!
Review: Okay, okay! This movie is pretty great and all and I have to say that many scenes were done solidly and went along with what I imagined they should be. It was great to finally see a film version of Middle Earth that was worthy, even though it was long winded, but hey. And, I will concede that some elements of the story it's alright to change to get the film to flow better. However, it struck me, after the scene where the hobbits arrive at the sign of the Prancing Pony, that one of the most magical sequences (to me anyway!) of the story had been left out. I still felt kind of like I missed something, even after the movie was over and I thought, WOW! I keep thinking that they could have squeezed old Bombadil in there somewhere, I mean, he is one of the most amazing and mysterious characters of the saga. He has been around at least as long as the elves and has all sorts of "powers" over the land. I would have given anything to see him singing along in his yellow boots and putting it to Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight. Remember that the hobbits get their weapons from the barrows in the book, but in the movie, Aragorn just kind of produces some blades and says, "Here, use these". Maybe there was a scene or two filmed and they just didn't use them for the movie and they'll turn up on the DVD, I don't know. Anyway, I guess Mr. Jackson figured that the scenes in the old forest were not central enough to the story to include them in an already LONG movie. Hey, it is still one of the best movies I have seen in a long time, if not THE best since I have loved the books from childhood. But I could have sat there an extra 10, 15 minutes or so just to see the River Daughter and Old Tom. That's the only reason I gave this movie 4/5 stars! I look forward to the next film to see how the Ents are portrayed!
Rating:
Summary: SIMPLY THE BEST!
Review: Okay, some 'funny' moron(s) tried to bring down the ratings of this awesome achievement with his/her/their hilarious 1-star reviews, but believe me, this film ROCKS!! One immediate improvement over the books, IMO: no Tom Bombadil, yay! (My apologies to his fans.) And, the way it was exquisitely filmed, directed and acted, could this film e-v-e-r be too long? I don't think so! I personally wouldn't have minded an extra hour of deleted footage... so what if you have to watch it over two nights? Well done, Peter Jackson, you richly deserve your accolades!
|
