Rating: 
Summary: Just great
Review: The Lord of the Rings-The Fellowship of the Ring The Extended Edition is just great. With new footage that was editted into the movie, something that is totally different when coming to detelted schenes, that are normally cut and pasted together in a different secion of a DVD which is outside of the movie. I haven't got into the extras that are on the two other discs, but from the bookage that I have seen that comes with the DVD set, there is a lot of extras that you can go through.
Rating:
Summary: Possibly the best film of the year.
Review: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: "THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING" is an epic struggle if you will. Relying on 190 million dollars for all three films, with each film rounding at three hours, wouldn't it get a little tight to fit it all into the budget? Having a lower-than-average cast, a director never even attempting a major blockbuster before, and being based on a very popular book where expectations skyrocket- wouldn't audiences share enough gratitude even if they hadn't seen the film firsthand? "RINGS" is an astonishing, ground-breaking surprise. THE LORD OF THE RINGS opens with a fearsome, monstrous battle, introducing the ring and the past behind it. The epic lifts off immediately with sword-and-sorcery action, and obviously- magnificent special effects. We are then introduced to the hobbit, Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, and Ian Holm. When Frodo (Wood) accepts the ring from his Uncle Bilbo (Holm), the fearful and epic journey begins, bringing you into the most magnificent world ever visualized. Creatures and demons await them at every turn. The group of nine struggle to reach Mordor, where the ring must be destroyed. This film is the best fantasy film of all time. I have to say that. Bigger than "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz", this renown and triumphant vision of the classic story is power packed with stylized fun and adventure to rock your mind. I literally was on the edge of my seat. The film is honestly that good. It is probably the best film of the year. "RINGS" is obviously off to a magnificent start, and I cannot wait for THE TWO TOWERS to come out. This film is too good. Everything is perfect. It is so good, you don't even realize you're in the theater for three hours. The scenery is the best. The action and special effects follow. Continuing the promising film is obviously the wonderously powerful story, and the powerhouse performances that sizzle on the stove. What created the biggest craving for my mind when watching the film, was its ending. I completely forgot that there really can't be a conclusion because the two sequels follow. The film just kind of ends, which kind of left me in a state of wonder. The thirst for more is left with me. "RINGS" doesn't allow you any guess into the next adventure, which builds a lot more anticipation. The dramatic scope of its sincerity and promise of near-perfection fills the glass immediately with this first installment. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that the next two pictures will rise and be as glorious as this first film. Whatever level or scale of genre you're looking for with this film, you have it. The film is an instant classic. I loved every glorified minute of it. The action and emotion is there. I've never read the book, and I don't think I'll want to. For the first time, my fear is that the book may undergo the film. Fantasy takes its toll being the biggest and best ever, and THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a promising treat to being superior to its word, and absolutely (and perfectly) satisfying to the entire audience. QUOTE: "THE LORD OF THE RINGS is excellent, one of the best of the year. Everything is perfect. Nothing falls short, or sinks below expectations. Action, adventure, visual effects, amazing performances, magnificent 'story-to-film' transformation, and emotion rule the screen. Topping STAR WARS and THE WIZARD OF OZ, "RINGS" is the best fantasy film of all time. I have no doubt that the sequels will be as disarming and powerful as this film. Renowned, rewarded, and revolutionized, THE LORD OF THE RINGS is a brilliant adventure-drama that left me in a state of awe! My anticipation and excitment grows, awaiting the next film to come in December."
Rating:
Summary: An Oscar-worthy film
Review: The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring has raised the bar for fantasy films. Tolkien wrote the book of the century and Jackson captured the spirit and the essence of Tolkien beautifully. I agree the effects were wonderful but didn't come across as playng with digital toys just for the sake of effects. It would have been impossible to capture all of the elements of the story and kept the film under 6 hours. But Jackson captured the spirit of Tolkien and gave newbies a reason to dive into the books. I'm counting the days to the next film The Two Towers. I have heard there are those that feel New Line is trying to capitalize on 9/11 with the name 'The Two Towers'. Obviously these folks are not the sharpest tools in the shed. :)
Rating:
Summary: Endless quest
Review: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is an epic movie in every way. I normally don't like fantasy-based movies but this one just blew me away. I enjoyed every minute of the 3 1/2 hours. I was hooked from beginning to end. It's rare that a movie of that length would keep anyone interested for that long. BUT IT DID! It was awesome. Visually it was excellent but the characters and the storyline is what will keep you hooked. The Characters are awesome. The acting was amazing. It was dramatic, emotional, and action-packed. The basic plot is about a hobbit (played oh so well by Elijah Wood) that acquires a ring of dark power and he has to destroy it. A lot unfolds along the way. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is pure magic and the ending leaves you craving parts 2 and 3.
Rating:
Summary: The Greatest Movie....................Ever!
Review: The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring is just flat out the best or at least one of the best movies to ever come about this earth. First of all, the special effects were just amazing and so were all the sets (including makeup and costumes). Every scene was just so beautiful to the fullest extent. I don't know if the sets or s/f could be made any more better than they were. Second of all, the story, characters(including their acting), and the way the director chose out the perfect scenes to tell the story was superb. Third of all, I really enjoyed the length of the movie. Some people just go crazy over long movies (rare). 3-4 hour movies or more are great!!!! I did not want the Fellowship of the Ring to end (since it was so jaw droppingly good). I believe that The Two Towers will be just as great (releases Christmas of 2002 GO SEE IT!) and so will the 3rd (its called Return of the King right?releases: Christmas 2003.) Now you may be going crazy over which version of the DVD to buy..... You can't waste money when it comes to this movie. So, Later! -Sam the Man
Rating: 
Summary: Very good, but not without (minor) flaws
Review: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Peter Jackson, 2001) Yes, I'm one of those people who's going to gripe about the exclusion of Tom Bombadil. Get over it. Peter Jackson's epic attempt to bring Tolkein's classic Lord of the Rings novels to the big screen in live form (an animated version was done previously; it's decent, but nothing to stop the presses for) was the subject of Taylor Branch book-sized amounts of debate before it actually hit the screen. How long would it be? Would he manage to include everything? Who would play Elrond? All that sort of thing. Eventually, we learned it would be three installments released over three years of three hours apiece, with each movie corresponding to one of the books. Three hours per book? I knew I was in trouble already. I have long been of the opinion that a true capturing of The Lord of the Rings on film would take at least twice that long. And it's not as if the moviegoing public would have balked at six films; anyone who didn't realize the movies were going to make as much money as they have either has their head stuck in the sand or is in upper management at a film studio, not that one precludes the other. I don't think I have to give a plot summary here. Everyone who's picked up a book has either read the Lord of the Rings, had The Lord of the Rings recommended to them and/or described to them by a fellow bibliophile, played enough Dungeons and Dragons to know what elves and dwarves look like (though Jackson's depiction of a cave troll, one of the movie's best pieces of CGI, is startlingly and wonderfully original), or some such. In other words, it's familiar ground. More of these thousand words can go to the good and bad points. The good points are many, the bad points are few, thankfully. Because the bad points are few, we'll start with them. And yes, the main one is the exclusion of Tom Bombadil, which undercuts so much of the Christian imagery in the books (much of the rest of which was left in the movie; after all, you can't really get rid of your Christ figure and his descent through Hell and still have it be the Fellowship of the Ring). Aside from being one of the largest and most overarching pieces of symbolism in the novel, it also sets the stage for much of what comes after; without the Tom Bombadil episode, you also lose the first capture of Frodo and Sam by the dark forces. Whoops. (To his credit, Jackson massages the source material so that this point is covered.) The other main piece of groan inducement is the performance of Cate Blanchett. Had this been the first time I'd seen her, I would have opined that the woman can't act worth an orc's wart. Ms. Blanchett, however, proved her mettle in many previous films (you have seen The Gift, yes?), leading me to wonder what, exactly, Peter Jackson was thinking when he told her to act like Bette Davis on Quaaludes. Many people, both admirers and critics alike, have already chimed in on Elijah Wood's Clint Eastwood impression (there's a contract in their clauses that they're only allowed to use two facial expressions per movie), so I'll just mention it in passing. The good things. The scenery is fantastic, but that's to be expected these days; they grow their cinematographers very, very hardy down under. Andrew Lesnie's pedigree is sterling; he was the director of photography on the weepingly good Dark City. Nuff said. He shows that he's just as comfortable with wide open spaces as he is with cramped cities here (which bodes well for his next project, the fourth Mad Max film). The whole supporting cast, with the already-noted exception of Blanchett, does a fantastic job. (It is, however, hard to reconcile the ageless elf Elrond with the old, bitchy drag queen in The Adventures of Priscilla, both played by Hugo Weaving. The worst part is, his hair looks better in this movie.) Viggo Mortensen does a sterling job in the role that will finally make him a household name (which he has long deserved); the two Ians, Holm and McKellen, are picture perfect, as is Christopher Lee. here are far too many well-known actors to go into them all here. Suffice to say they all do exceptionally well. For a three-hour film, the pace is quite well executed. Jackson has already proven himself a master of pace by making The Frighteners far more than it would have been in the hands of a lesser director, so that was to be expected. There is no boredom to be found anywhere in this movie; if anything, it lacks suspense because there's way too much going on at any given moment. That, too, is to be expected when you're trying to cram a book like The Fellowship of the Ring into three hours, but the movie never goes the other way, either; it never feels like there's too much going on to keep track of. Is it a good film? Absolutely, and well worth seeing. Does it belong at #6 on IMDB's Top 250? Well, no, but then nothing in their top 10 deserves its placing. No surprise there, either. *** ½
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Amazing
Review: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring has got to be the best movie ever made, because I can certainly not think of anything to match it. This movie beautifully adapts Tolkien's literary masterpiece with a cinematic masterpiece to match. The scenery is beautiful, the special effects are amazing, the acting is world class, and the driving image and feeling behind this movie is unprecendented. Never will you see a better movie. If you have not already bought this movie, you are definitely missing something you should not live without.
Rating:
Summary: The Road Goes Ever On...
Review: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a fine movie. Too bad it didn't win best picture. It could have kicked off an Oscars run similar to The Godfather trilogy. Alas... Academy voters have always been blind. For instance: Can somebody please tell me why Jackson was not the best director? His vision of was the one thing that rose above the bland mire that was last year's Oscar crop. The only other decent movie released during Oscar season was The Shipping News (which Oscar completely neglected). Can someone please show me an Actor who gave more to his movie than Ian McKellan? His Gandalf is pure genius. Who else could have made such a character believable, much less likable? Where oh where has Viggo Mortensen's supporting actor Oscar gone? These questions left aside, there are flaws in the book's translation to the screen. I still can't see what is gained by having Liv Tyler rescue Frodo. Poor Glorfindel. The beginning of the movie, while being a wonderful piece of cinematic exposition, horribly compresses some things. Again--poor Tom Bombadil. Finally, I understand this is to be in the "director's cut" of the 4 disc DVD, but why on earth did they not put Gimli's falling in love with Galadriel in the publicly released version? --Kind of important for characterization. However, none of these flaws should really stop someone from watching this great movie. There are too many things that are dealt with with excellence: -The Shire. Jackson has captured the beauty and wonder of the Shire and its fascinating Hobbits. -Weathertop. Though this too gets condensed (and we lose Aragorn's all important tale), Jackson has captured the fight on Weathertop just as I had imagined it. -Moria and the fight on the bridge. Moria is wonderfully imagined. Gandalf's talk with Frodo is another great piece of exposition. The flight across the bridge and Gandalf's stand against the Balrog are scary as can be. -Kate Blanchett is perfect as Galadriel. -The two scenes at the end, between Boromir and Aragorn, and Sam and Frodo, are as moving as anything that's been on the screen in the past twenty years. They leave the viewer waiting expectantly for the next film. Which is where I am. In the meantime, I give The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings my highest recommendation. This two disc DVD version has a lot of cool extras, but I'd recommend springing for the four disc version which is going to have a whole lot more.
Rating:
Summary: THE MOST "ORIGINAL" EPIC EVER!
Review: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is a masteriece! It is, without a doubt, the best film ever made, or the best film made in the last ten years at least! Even with awesome visual effects and intense action and adventure, the film never loses the novel's emotional depth or scope. Captures the essence of the novel in spades! It has great characters that are played to perfection, and has a wonderful score that deserved it's Oscar. ... This film is DEFINITELY worth the time! All 178 Minutes of it! If you haven't seen it, then WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? Grade: A+
Rating:
Summary: Excelent DVD collection for a excelent film
Review: The lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring is a movie in which people had been waiting for for years. The book has been hailed as the ultimate fantasy ever, and now it comes to life in a way that nobody ever thaught possible. Nobody ever thaught that the technology would ever be good enough to bring the amazing effects that J. R. R. Tolkien described. He described events and places so amazingly, and descriptivly, that many thaught the world of middle earth could never be brought to life. But it has been done. The whole series of is three movies long, that dont give u a re-cap of the previos movies. Therefor if you havent sen the movie in thetures, you have to buy or rent it. The story is so complicated, and so based on the finnest details that you cannot simply walk into the next one and completlt understand it. The next move, The two towers, is the middle of the series. Whereas in the first movie, you start to understand the quest of the ring, The two towers is where a lot of the action begins. There is a huge battle, one in which the evil sauromon plans to wipe out mankind. The battle is huge, and definatly a highlite of the movie. But if you didnt even make an effort to seeing the first one, there certinaly is no point in seeing the secound one. But there are two DVD sets. One, is the basic two disk set. Very basic, with some special features. Then there is the new special edition box set. In thi sone, there are acually four DVD's, and much more special features, which will explain the making of the movie, music, cast and more. And belive me, after seeing the movie, you are going to want to see the special features and the making of the film. There are acually more in the movie on the specila edition box set. There are scenes which didnt appear in the movie at first in the theture version and the normal DVD version. They are scenes in which are not to be missed, for thwy are very interesting. I dont even understand why they took it out of the movie, but if they didnt, the movie would be about four hours. This DVD is a great gift, and if you or someone you know hasnt seen the firt one yet, they will definalty want to see it so that not to miss out on the secound one, which will certinaly be even better then the first.
|
