Rating: 
Summary: follows the book, vivid characters, and impressive acting...
Review: ...what more could you ask for?Tolkien's world has been recreated almost perfectly. With vivid characters, impressive acting, beautiful scenery, and amazing computer animation this movie is one that will be looked upon as an amazing movie for years to come. Although they left out a few things, the movie is an excellent portraying of the book. The acting is great and the characters are vivid. Everything is like it is in the book. This movie will have you jumping out of your seat and holding your breath ... more than once! Don't wait for it to come out on video ... you can't experience it the same. With screeching horses and screaming orcs, things aren't the same sitting on the couch in front of the TV. See it in theaters!
Rating: 
Summary: Tolkein done "Action Jackson"-style
Review: We're always hearing how classic films from a generation ago would never be made in today's Hollywood era of short attention spans. Take, for instance, Francis Ford Copolla's 1972 "the Godfather". Turns out he directed that movie in constant fear that Paramount executives would replace him with a "violence director" (Copolla's own phrase), someone who would spruce up the film with more action, as opposed to following Mario Puzo's novel so closely. Thankfully, Paramount resisted that temptation, and Coppola's subtle drama and character study is one of the best movies ever made, based on a book or otherwise. Too bad we can't say the same about Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring". This is the violence director's version of Tolkein's novel, the movie that, sadly, *is* made in today's Hollywood era of short attention spans. I'm not complaining about the condensation of the novel. There's simply no way to present 400 pages of text in three hours, and cutting is perfectly legitimate, even if it means consolidating lesser characters into one (e.g., Glorfindel into Arwen), losing some (e.g., Tom Bombadil), or even introducing minor plot inconsistencies (e.g., that Aragorn knew to bring swords for four hobbits, when Merry and Pippen came along by accident). Even the loss of character development is acceptable, though surely Jackson has done Tolkein's conflicted yet heroic Boromir a mighty injustice. My main beef is rather that this is the MTV-saturated, video-game-inspired version of Tolkein: all flash, action, and battles with huge monsters worthy of video gaming "dungeon boss" status. It's emphatically not Tolkein's novel, which relies more on subtlety and long-simmering tension to keep its readers engaged. There's no cave troll encounter in the book, no flight across a crumbling maze of stairwells, no orc captain to behead in a nick of time. Gandalf and Saruman do not engage in any ridiculous wizard's duel, hurling each other across a room. And that tentacled creature outside Moria, the one whose limbs our heroes spend a few minutes hacking from the rest of its body? In the book they simply flee it. Many other liberties are taken, all in the attempt to cast as wide a viewership net as possible. One of the saddest is the caricature of the dwarf Gimli. In the book his exposure to the beautiful elven realm of Lorien, and its noble and elegant queen Galadriel, softens his initially suspicious stance towards elves and begins his long friendship with Legolas. The movie chooses instead to play Gimli for comic relief -- clumsy, mistrustful, and without any change after leaving Lorien. And let's not forget the requisite gratuitous love interest, between Aragorn and Arwen. Yes, that does appear in Tolkein's trilogy... in an appendix, and even then it's chronologically well before and after the events chronicled in the main text. New Line Cinema has even possibly shot itself in the foot by electing to import some of the surprises of the later books into their first film, in the hopes of securing a strong audience base at the outset. The land of Mordor is not described in Tolkein's first book, because the central figures have not yet arrived there. All we get is character reaction to its very name, creating mystery to be revealed in later books. Not so in the movie. Saruman's treachery is likewise too far advanced. That he has one of the dangerous palantiri (seeing globes) or that he is fashioning his own orc army we are not supposed to discover until "Two Towers", when the depth of his betrayal is more fully realized. (Not to mention the nuance that's lost in aligning Saruman with Sauron, as opposed to the book's portrayal of him as intending to create a third and independent rival for power.) Jackson even chose to stretch this first movie long enough to cover the Boromir's last stand, which the book prudently saves for the beginning of the second installment, after we have had enough time to digest the loss of Gandalf. There are many other examples, but the real tragedy here is that Tolkein's novel is so good on its own. It doesn't need the steroid treatment New Line Cinema thinks we require. Thank goodness Puzo penned "the Godfather" thirty years ago; today's movie version most certainly would be all violence and action. So I wonder, sadly, how "Fellowship of the Ring" would have turned out with this generation's technology, but the previous one's sensibilities.
Rating:
Summary: Five Stars to Rule Them All!!!
Review: Solid five for this one! The "Fellowship of the Ring" is definately one of the best films in history. The special effects, lush settings, dark imagery, and epic story put other sci-fi and fantasy flicks to shame. Luke Skywalker, watch out for Frodo Baggins. The plot remains almost exactly to the book: Frodo the hobbit is given the quest to destroy the evil ring of the dark lord Sauron, and is joined by a motley bunch of adventurers to form the Fellowship of the Ring. Gandalf, the ancient wizard, gives guidance and wisdom. Legolas the Elf and Gimli the Dwarf, warriors among their kind, are well acted. Boromir the human is the heroic guy with a dark side to him. Aragorn, a.k.a. Strider, is so *HOT*. Sam, Pippin, and Merry, the three bumbling hobbits, provide comic relief as happy-go-lucky fish out of the water in a dangerous quest. The bad guys were convincingly evil and freaky, not like the stupid disco-chanting orcs in the 1970s cartoon, "Return of the King." The orcs were marvelously gross and ugly as they were meant to be. Saruman is excellent as Gandalf's rival. The ringwraiths are all good and spooky. The Eye of Sauron watches the viewers in their seats, and Balrog is great as a genuinely dark, evil spirit. The special effects themselves don't dominate the whole film. This movie brings the Tolkein characters and their Middle Earth world to stunning and breathtaking life. The characters become people one can relate to and it is easy to get into the story. (When Frodo was crying I just wanted to go up to the screen and hug him!!!) There is some controversy over the character of Arwen and her getting a bigger role in the movie than in the books. This was basically necessary, since she is the girlfriend of one of the lead male characters and the movie somehow has to establish her character. She IS a warrior woman, but not a fake Lara Croft or Xena take-off. A few other characters from the book are completely left out, but only for time reasons. With a whopping three hours already, it would be impossible to have the book down word for word. "Fellowship of the Ring" is sure to satisfy die-hard Tolkein fans without confusing newcomers. The movie goes into great detail and explanation without getting too slow. The chase sequences and epic battle scenes, especially in the second half of the film, take the viewer on a wild, heart-thumping, suspenseful roller coaster ride. Definately a must-see!
Rating:
Summary: Intense, spectacular movie
Review: I've never been a big Tolkien fan. I read the Fellowship of the Ring -- or part of it -- years ago and wasn't all that impressed. I wasn't inspired to read the other books in the trilogy.
All that being said, this was a fabulous movie. To be sure, it dragged a bit in places. The beginning was slow and Hobbittville -- whatever it's called -- bored me. But the action scenes were intense and frightening. I could feel my skin crawl when the ringwraiths were on the screen The settings -- especially the various castles and underground cities -- were incredible. There are visions of heaven and hell, and they're as convincing as any I've ever seen. This is no movie for children. The violence was graphic and frightening. Somehow it was all very believable and serious. The heroes were really heroes and the villians were really evil and it seemed important that the good guys won.
This is one of the best action flics I've ever seen. Right up there with Crouching Tiger and Terminator and Last of the Mohicans. I'm surprised that an eccentric fantasy like LOTR could be turned into such a good movie. Or maybe it's a great movie. Let's see how it holds up when I see it a second and third time.
Rating:
Summary: Lord Of The Rings kicks Harry Potter's butt!!!!!!!
Review: This film was fantastic it was always exciting and there was always something happening all the time. The effects were fabulous and the creatures in the movie were well created. Even though the film was 3 hours long it diddn't bore me- because i thought at first i was going to get bored sitting for 3 hours watching this film but it did not bore me at all because there was always something new happening and i thouroughly enjoyed the film. This film is loads better than Harry Potter because Harry Potter is mainly a kids film as this one is for kids and adults. I can't wait for the next one to come which is 'The Two Towers' in christmas 2002 so untill the next one comes out i am going to buy the second book called 'The Two Towers' and read it to find out what happens because the suspence is killing me!
Rating:
Summary: A film adaptation that does the book proud.
Review: I have been a Lord of the Rings fan since I was 6 years old; that's when The Hobbit appeared on CBS, and Ralph Bakshi's animated Lord of the Rings hit theaters. It wasn't long before I was nagging my mom to buy me the books, so I could see if they were as good. (They were better.) Tolkien's imaginative and groundbreaking books opened my young mind up to a new world; one filled with mythical quests, brave heroes, strange creatures, and vile villains. I tried to keep my expectations for Director Peter Jackson's film low, so I wouldn't be disappointed, but enthusiasm got the better of me, and I was ripe for a letdown.....one mis-step and Jackson could ruin the whole thing.....and he hits it out of the park!!! WOW!!!! From the opening moments, it's easy to see Jackson's love for the books. Attention is paid to even the most minute detail, and book-purists will be glad to hear that he has crafted maybe the most faithful page-to-screen adaptation ever, bar none. I'm sure there were things in the book that were left out, but other than Tom Bombadil, I can't remember anything. For the uninitiated, LOTR follows Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit, on his quest to throw the evil "One Ring" into the fires of Mount Doom, where it was forged, thus freeing Middle-Earth from an age of darkness. He is accompanied on this quest by a fellowship of Hobbits, an Elf, a Dwarf, 2 Men, and a Wizard. They are pursued by various and sundry servants of the Dark Lord Sauron, who forged the Ring, and his underling, the traitor Saruman (Perfectly played by the Legendary Christopher Lee). The performances are all strong, especially Sean Bean as the Warrior Boromir, Viggo Mortensen as Strider, and Ian McKellen as Gandalf. I thought Hugo Weaving made a great Elrond. The effects are mindblowing! I was totally taken in by the way they made full-sized actors into Hobbits, and seeing the large John Rhyes-Davies as Gimli the Dwarf was incredible. The HUGE battle scene in the beginning, and the hordes of Orcs in the Mines of Moria show that, if used properly, CGI can look totally realistic. I've been a Peter Jackson fan since The Frighteners and Dead/Alive, but when I heard that he was going to be directing the Rings movies, I wasn't sure.....
Well, I am now. If The Two Towers were playing now, I would have gone as soon as LOTR let out. He did that good a job.
Bravo, Mr. Jackson, for crafting one of the most entertaining and visually stunning pictures I have ever seen. Now if only I didn't have to wait another year for part II......
Rating:
Summary: BREATH TAKING
Review: Breath taking - this is the best film ever (ever) if you have not seen it then you should go to your film straight away. I'm flabbergasted, it'll totally make you cry. The theme of the movie is completely different to what i expected go take your whole family to see it over Christmas (even take your granny and aunts and cousins and friends) You will love it and thats a PROMISE ...
Rating:
Summary: 5 Stars doesn't come close....It's far better!
Review: What a fantastic world Peter Jackson and crew have created! I can't begin to imagine this movie with a different cast; remove a member, and it wouldn't have been the same. I've been a fan of Tolkien most of my life - I first read 'The Hobbit' when I was 10 (required reading by teacher - Thanks, Ms. Skinner!) and have been lost and found in fantasy ever since. After patiently (not so patiently?) waiting more than a year and a half for this film, I can say that it not only lived up to my expectations; it has far surpassed them. The decision to leave out Tom Bombadil was no big deal; he was considered by Tolkien himself to be unimportant to the narrative and was well aware that he was a 'discordant ingredient' in the story. I feel that the movie worked well by leaving him out, and that to include him would probably have been too much and detracted from the rest of the story. If you haven't seen this film yet, please do. To miss seeing this one on the big screen is like trying to watch the sun set with your eyes closed. Please don't let negative reviews taint your true feelings about this film, because the story, the acting, the scenery and the special effects are all combined perfectly. It is a must see, and perhaps one of the greatest movies of all time. (I want a hobbit house all my own!)
Rating: 
Summary: Much better then expected
Review: I - like many, viewed the release of LOTR with a bit of aprehension. My concern was simple - there's no way Jackson could create a film that would include the entire story - therefore what was to be written out? However as the film unfolded, I found myself concentrating on his version of the story without being overly concerned about the missing details. Jackson actually did a great job of continuity in the time (too short IMHO) alloted. No "Two Towers" preview was disapointing.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Movies I've Ever Seen
Review: I saw this twice in the first three nights it was out. I've always loved the books, and was worried that Hollywood might ruin something good, as it has the potential to do. The Fellowship of the Ring is one of the best book-to-movie transitions I've ever seen. The casting is phenomenal, as are many performances; the audience I saw it with cheered at the end. Highly recommended.
| 
