Rating: 
Summary: CG Artists
Review: Not sure if any focus group work will be done with the Amazon reviews, but if anyone who's working on LOTR is peeking at these, *Would you please use walk cycles on the CG characters that are at least a little dissimilar? Even if you just have 2 and alternate them between characters, it should be enough to fool anyone's eye. It's so hard to go back and watch the Moria scenes -- Crossing the bridge, Descending the staircase, running through the great hall... You all know what I'm talking about and I'd like to see a little variation. Thanks!
Rating: 
Summary: Exceeded Expectations!!!!
Review: Well, I must say that this is by far the best movie of 2001...even more so than harry potter...this movie is great for anyone who has read the books and for those who want a pretty good action movie...I'd have to say this is one of the best movies I've ever watched, and I have seen it twice (which is extremely rare for theatrical releases)...if you want violence, its here...want story, its here...want fantasy, its here...want consistency with original book, its pretty consistent so far...elijah wood plays a hobbit named Frodo who is unfortunately given the duties to destroy an evil ring, which can corrupt the bearer and bring life back to the evil demon that once beared it, who will bring evil upon the entire world...However, Frodo has a sort of resistence to the evil corruption of the ring and sometimes manages to use the ring to his advantage...nevertheless, he must destroy it back at where it was created in some evil volcanic hill which is surrounded by evil orks and other devilous beings...On his journey to the mountains, he must avoid and fight off the 9 black knights that serve the ring and the evil demon that once beared it...Frodo is accompanied by many warriors for protection, one of which is an awesome archer...when you go see this film, keep an eye on the archer(the one with the bow and arrows), he's the most noblest and coolest guy in the picture...the movie, partly titled The Fellowship of the Ring, runs 3 hours long and will leave you hanging at the end wanting to watch more...for those that dont know, this is going to be a trilogy somewhat like star wars, and this is only the first part...I'm very eager to see the last two...this movie isn't exactly for the children considering the bloodshed, but it really is pretty great...hopefully my opinion as well as others will persuade you to go see this great deal of work...happy viewing!!!
Rating:
Summary: See it twice before passing judgement
Review: First off, I should mention that I have always been a big fan of Tolkien, as much for his influence as his works.
A few weeks prior to the movie, I purchased and reread the trilogy (including The Hobbit). So the exact details of the books were very fresh in my mind when I first sat down to watch the movie. I'd imagine that for those who are bigger fans than I the details in the books are just as fresh in their minds, even though their last readings may be more distant.
Throughout the entire viewing, I found myself comparing it to the books. I lamented the huge portions of the trip from the Shire to Rivendell that were cut out; I was midly peeved at the role played by Arwen, and I gasped at the butchery of the meeting with Galadriel. When the movie was over, I was profoundly disappointed; I had been so concerned finding the flaws in the movie (where it differed from the book) that I was unable to enjoy it.
Not wanting to pass hasty judgement, I waited a few days and then saw it again. This was a wonderful decision.
The second time around, I found that I no longer compared the movie to the book. Instead, I was able to enjoy it for what it was: a fantastic movie, rather than an above-average adaptation of a novel. And this is what you must keep in mind while watching. If you are looking for a perfectly faithful reproduction of the novel, seek elsewhere. The movie is three hours long, far too short to perfectly mimic a novel like The Fellowship. Furthermore, there is a lot of the background material in the book that simply cannot be conveyed well in movie format.
On the other hand, judged as a movie, LOTR succeeds spectacularly on all levels. The landscapes and special effects are superb; the acting and casting are wonderful; the cinematography, although a bit rough in places (like the battles), is generally very well-done. Most importantly, the movie succeeds at being both epic and sentimental, humorous and frightening. The ability of LOTR to elicit such a wide range of emotions is testament to the fantastic interplay between the all the elements that make up the film. LOTR must be judged on its merits as a film, not as a screenplay adaptation. If you are a big fan of the books, it may take more than one viewing before you are able to do this. Once you've put aside your preconceived notions, however, you can scarcely be disappointed. LOTR is a truly epic film, and a few minor flaws should not prevent anyone from being wholly entertained and moved by it.
Rating:
Summary: Oh my god...whoops, Lord!
Review: I've never seen a film like this. Forget fantasy films in the past(that I've enjoyed, mind you) that tried to be like this film. Legend, Willow, The Neverending Story. Forget adventure drama epics in recent years that aren't even as good as this. Gladiator, Braveheart, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Not only was I skeptical of this movie( I've been skeptical of every sure-blockbuster film since Episode I), but I was ready to hate it. Oh, was I mistaken.
Acting: Superb. Elijah Wood wasn't buggy. That's a feat in itself! (My personal favorite: Orlando Bloom as Legolas. And that's not just because he's easy on the eyes...) Story and Flow: Excellent. Never bored. Always intrested. Action: Oh my lord...amazing. I've never read the books, and I don't intend to. I do intend, however,to wait until next December to see the rest of the story unfold wonderfully before my eyes. This is cinematic artistry. Forget George Lucas and that little film called Episode II. I'd rather plop down 8 bucks to see "Fellowship" again. And then wait another six months to plop down another 8 bucks to see Part Two, "The Two Towers".
Rating:
Summary: Better than Star Wars?
Review: No, it's not better than the first Star Wars trilogy. It does blow away the pitiful Phantom Menace and is by far the most entertaining film in the last 5 years. I'm going to see it again soon. I knew it couldn't compare to the magic of the book, but I'm not disappointed. If you've read Tolkien, it's hard not to analyze the movie as you watch it. The things that other people didn't like about it, such as Arwen's prominent role or the absence of Tom Bombadil, I didn't find to be annoying. The things that bothered me most were how short the trip from the Shire to Bree seemed to be. It was like they got there in less than a day. Also, how fast Galdalf got to Minas Tirith to read the old scrolls was like warp speed. Yeah, it's only a 3 hour movie, so I know they didn't have time to waste. But that messes with your mind. The things I really loved about it were the intro (probably the best part of the film) and the Balrog, mines of Moria stuff. Way cool, even better than I could have imagined those scenes in my mind. The casting of the movie was pretty good, though they gave us skinnier, taller Hobbits than I think most people imagined. Also, the Hobbits seemed to shrink and grow from scene to scene, another thing that kind of messes with your head. I know some people think that's being overly critical, and they're probably right. The next time I see the film, I'm going to try to think less about it and just enjoy it. This is worth seeing, whether you're a Tolkien fan or not. The guy wrote some great literature, and the best thing this movie will accomplish is getting a broader audience interested in his work.
Rating:
Summary: Not to be Missed!
Review: If you can get past the 3 hour running time then go see Lord of the Rings. One of the most visually stunning, powerful films ever made. I have never read the book and was only interested in the film because of all the hype surrounding it. It is a masterpiece. Filled with riveting performances from Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchet, and most notabley Sir Ian Mckellan, as well as the rest of the mostly unknown cast. It's exciting, intense, and beautiful to watch. Yes, it is a long long movie, but barely noticable. Well worth it, and the only thing that makes me mad is that we all have to wait a whole year for the sequel.
Rating:
Summary: Toy Set
Review: I recently bought the Arwen and Asfaloth Deluxe Horse and Rider Set for my brother for christmas and when he had oppened it i noticed that her right hand was replaced by her left.All in all Arwen has two left hands and no right one.Anyone can wright me back on this toy mistake.If anyone knows anything about the rarity of this toy i would certainly like two hear your input
Rating:
Summary: An epic with a heart
Review: Director Peter Jackson has, with the collaboration of his cast and crew, achieved a spectacular success with "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," the first installment in a promised trilogy of films based on the classic fantasy adventure novels by J.R.R. Tolkien. "Fellowship" takes place in Middle Earth, a fantastic realm peopled by wizards, dwarves, elves, and other beings. All of Middle Earth faces an apocalyptic threat in the reemergence of legendary dark lord Sauron. As evil forces gather, a critical task is entrusted to Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), of the race of beings known as Hobbits. "Fellowship" is a sweeping epic that features awe-inspiring vistas, journeys, and battles. But despite the tremendous scope of Jackson's canvas, he never loses touch with the lives of his characters. And although these characters are beings from the world of fantasy, the emotional core of the film is absolutely real: the film movingly explores such universal concerns as fear, love, friendship, shame, and loyalty. An outstanding cast delivers superb performances. Ian McKellan, who lately has had a string of amazing larger-than-life roles ("Gods and Monsters," "X-Men"), is amazing as the wizard Gandalf: he brings not only power and regal bearing, but also a merry earthiness to his role. Elijah Wood is equally outstanding as Frodo; he brings depth and likability to his role as a sort of "everyman" (or "everyhobbit"?) who rises to, and is ennobled by, the epic quest that is thrust upon him. I won't mention each of the other cast members, but will just say that they also meet this level of excellence, creating a rich and moving tapestry of relationships among their characters. Every element of the film comes together superbly: art direction, cinematography, makeup, visual effects, etc.; I was particularly impressed by Howard Shore's musical score. And one of the film's key themes -- that an unlikely or unexpected person can be a hero -- is compelling. One word of caution, however: "Fellowship" is very much an adult film. Its combination of graphic, "Saving Private Ryan"-style battlefield carnage and "Omen"-style demonic horror may be way too intense for much of the "Harry Potter" fan base. But for adults and mature children, this fantasy epic is an awe-inspiring, emotionally rich journey that you may want to take more than once.
Rating: 
Summary: A for effort, C for execution
Review: Only a truly churlish soul would opine that Peter Jackson doesn't have high regard for the Ring trilogy or for the intentions of J.R.R. Tolkien in writing it. Trouble is, so did Ralph Bakshi when HE attempted it, and Jackson makes a lot of the same mistakes Bakshi made. It's one thing for a movie adaptation of THE LORD OF THE RINGS to not meet everybody's expectations---that's to be, um, expected. What bothered me in this version and in the 1978 version is that the subtlety in which Tolkien tells his tale AND weaves his epic history and landscape of Middle Earth is only sporadically allowed into view here. If all there was to THE LORD OF THE RINGS was a quest, heroes, villains and a lot of battles, this wouldn't be an issue--but there's more to it than that. Why NOT have Tom Bombadil in either movie? Don't tell me that portion of the story would bore people; my nephew, who's 11 years old, LOVES that part of it! Why present Saruman in the flesh so early? Part of the power of the story is when we, the readers, see behind the facade of Saruman's power for ourselves in THE TWO TOWERS--and he is truly evil in the book, not Christopher Lee doing a a white-bearded Darth Vader impression as in the new movie. Why automatically make the assumptions that people won't "get it" unless you scream it at them with a pumped up soundtrack, non-stop gory battles and only the barest hint of Tolkien's poetry? Nonsense! At this point, I'm not sure that, beyond a good reading on audio CD (and there are a couple out there that are quite fine), THE LORD OF THE RINGS belongs anywhere else besides on the printed page, to be read, re-read and enjoyed. Maybe there is a good movie to be made of it, but these sure aren't them!
Rating:
Summary: Never the less, a great film.
Review: Let start by saying that I never read the Hobbit or the Ring Trilogy, but I understood everything that was going on. .... It is 100% impossible to make a movie that was base off a book and keep it true to form... There several things in this movie that didn't happen in the first book or were slightly changed. (My mother and brother read all of them) Gandlf didn't have time to shout or grab on to a ledge as he was pulled into the abyss. And the climatic battle at the end didn't happen in Fellowship. Rather this film ends were the second book begins with Frodo and Sam running off together. Or when Frodo was stab by the Dark Riders (that what they were called in the 1978 animated movie). They say the movie too long like it's a bad thing? If it anything else was cut out or change it would be less dramatic. Unlike in Episode One, Jackson focus and equal amount of time on the both the effects and the acting, which was beyond words to descript it's greatness, (thank you, Ian Mckellen!) the vast scenery, the atmosphere in the mines, the thundering musical score is beyond anything else that was ever made. Other films Like ... are going to have a rough time at the Oscars, Like Titanic, this film will steal the show. Some say that there is too much violence in this film, YEAH RIGHT! .... If they wanted to have a truly hard hitting emotional impacted, go for the goal and put in the gore! The 1978 movie had more blood in it, and was more darker.
|
