Rating: 
Summary: Movie of the Year?
Review: I should confess at the beginning that as a child of nine I read The Lord of the Rings. My aunt read The Hobbit to me when I was six or so, and then introduced me to Tolkien's longer work some years later. I loved the book as a child, and as an adult have returned from time to time to this bit of "comfort literature" in which a grown-up can certainly find new things.I had expected to be disappointed with Peter Jackson's film, not because I am some sort of Tolkien purist, but because as I get older and know more of the world, it seems harder to find real wonder in film. The first Star Wars movies created the contemporary notion of the "blockbuster," spawning summer after summer of over-hyped junkfood cinema. For every Raiders of the Lost Ark there are dozens of films like Independence Day, Tomb Raider, and Armageddon that promise the world and deliver an empty experience. During the five minute prologue, which explains the history of the Ring, I feared endless esoteric exposition and tedium. My concerns were misplaced. The opening scenes with Ian McKellen and Ian Holm are touching and immersive; one feels one is seeing old friends reunited in some fantastic world. Rings only got better after that, revealing itself to be one of the most impressive bits of movie-making I have ever seen. The film reminds me of some of the great epics and adventure movies of the past, flicks like Star Wars, King Kong, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Lawrence of Arabia. Virtually everything about the film works very well: acting, cinematography, special effects, and editing all serve the story and the development of the characters. Nothing is wasted, and one cannot help but be impressed with Jackson's work on Rings. Jackson has gone to extraordinary lengths to faithfully adapt the book while creating an excellent film, and all the major themes from the novel are there. He should be applauded for this, not picked to pieces. I am annoyed by Tolkien fundamentalists who seem to think that every word written in Rings is somehow sacred; they should be very thankful that Jackson has made the changes that he did, changes that are faithful to the complexities of the story yet create a very effective movie. I suggest that Tolkien purists not see the film if the changes will bother them.
Rating:
Summary: I liked It
Review: I will bw quick. I have loved the books for a long time. This movie was spectacular as a movie. It is not the book. If you want to experience the book... read the book. If you want a great movie see this movie. Nuff said
Rating:
Summary: Amazing and simply breath taking.....
Review: Lord of the Rings as you know is a tale about a young hobbit named Frodo who inharits a powerful ring from a fellow hobit named Baggins. From there it takes off with flying colors and keeps you on the edge of your seat from scene to scene. This amazing movie stayed true to the book and is a must see for fans and people new to the series alike.
Rating:
Summary: Bringing Tolkien to life in a wonderous way....
Review: Peter Jackson captures both your heart and your imagination with the film version of "Lord of the Rings" - the first in a series of three films which promises to bring the J.R. Tolkien classic to life, on the screen. LOTR was the foundation for me in a lifetime of love affairs with books - first read in 1967 at the age of 12, it changed my tastes from childhood readings to adult fare; it swept me up in the powerful imagery of Tolkien's vivid vision of an alternate world.
I fretted all year at the thought of the film, and was pleased at the choice of director, and that no stars with names that are household words were to be featured in the roles. I could not resist seeing the film on Day 1, and in all 3+ hours, I was captivated by the screen. I attended with a friend who had never read LOTR, and was able to realize how well Jackson has succeeded in helping the film exceed expectations of lifelong Tolkien fans, as well as introducing the epic to those who are unfamiliar with the story. The cinematography and special effects are quietly brilliant, the use of the unspoiled territory of New Zealand was a marvelous choice - the Shire is particularly well captured in the film, as is the lair of Saruman, who is chilling in his role of a brilliant genius turned evil. Possibly his best techniques, of the many used in the film, was the way he conveyed the evil lust that overcomes those who are tempted by the power that possession of the ring entails. Seeing Bilbo, Baromir and Galadriel all succumb to the NEED for the ring through the eyes of Gandalf and Frodo was chilling, and better conveyed visually here than in the book. Jackson does not let the special effects overwhelm your sense of story, much as Lucas did in the first Star Wars trilogy. The music is perfectly adapted to both story and cinematography, and was a highlight of the film for me.
Jackson captured the spirit of the story - the teamwork and love that grows between comrades faced with insurmountable odds; in particular, he makes the odd-looking Frodo (Elijah Wood) very slowly into the character that many noble men and women will place their trust in. Frodo and Samwise' (Sean Astin, excellent in his role) friendship is real and transcends the screen. The larger than life roles of Gandalf and Aragon/Strider (Ian McKellan and Viggo Mortensen) were well cast and memorable - both actors became their roles, and both captured the sense of honor that those who protect the endangered hobbits on their noble quest, must have. McKellan particularly, although nominated for a supporting actor role, made Gandalf his own. Here's a role that could not be recast successfully again; McKellan is the ultimate Gandalf. Jackson has succeeded in directing successful characterization on the screen, and sacrificing some bit players from the book to the texture of the main plot. There is no question that this film succeeds on the level of epics, and we are fortunate in this decade, to be able to keep it alongside "Crouching Tiger"...while waiting for the saga to continue to unfold. Bravo!
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: I was surprised at how well the movie went along with the novels. I was sort of disapointed that they left out the whole Tom Bombadil part. I'm sure they had thought about it but in the end it had to be cut. This will definitly be a movie I will see again. I will definitely buy it too. I can't wait until next year and the year after when Two Towers and The Return of the King come out!
Rating:
Summary: It's a movie, people. A M-O-V-I-E.
Review: You know, for the LOTR purists who thought this movie was (...) and would have been satisfied with nothing less than a 25 hour movie that contained every single word of narrative and dialogue from the Tolken book, get over yourselves. I'm sorry that Arwen rode a horse. I'm sorry that a character was left out entirely. I'm sorry that the movie didn't match your imaginations. I really am. But you have to remember; this is a movie. Though it's adapted from a very well known novel, it's meant to stand by itself, and not simply to please those who like the book.
If you're a fantatical Tolken fan, and will only be satisfied with a rock solid adaptation of the 500 page book, then please God, don't come to this movie so you can merely complain about how different it is. I've known fans of LOTR that have come out of this film going , "that was awesome", because they were ready to like a movie, and didn't just go in to pick out every single way the book was different from it, because, let's face it, pointing out the differences between a 500 page book and a 3 hour movie is like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyway, as far as movies go, this one, I think, is great. At worst, you'll think it's good, and a fantastic technical achievement, and at best you'll think it's the best movie of all time, and walk out of the theater (...) that it's over. For those people who went into the movie and brought a pencil to bash the ways the movie lost the book, forget it. I mean, just forget it. Meanwhile, I'm going to go see it again. I'm almost glad I haven't read the books yet, so I'm not inclined to treat the movie with the same skepticism and spite that some people have.
Rating:
Summary: Thank God For Peter Jackson
Review: I went to see this movie and was so excited i could barely sit still,i wasnt disapointed it was spectacular.The orcs and the fighting scenes (especially those in Moria) Absolutely took my breath away.I can garentee this movie will win best picture and best actor for Ian Mckellen (Although Christopher Lee and Elijah Wood Probably have a chance) And best director.Dont believe these people who say that this movie is rasist or sexist cause thats just a heap of bullcrap made up by people who are obviously feminests.of course no movies are perfect Galadrial and the Lothlorien sequence (...) and so did the flight to the ford but i can ignore those but the unfogivable mistake however is replacing Glorfindol with Arwen,I was outraged.still this is definetly the finest film ever made,at least until the rest of the trilogy is released.If you have not read the book and have seen or plan on seeing the movie i strongly recomend that you do read it,it will give you a much greater understanding of the film.
Rating:
Summary: The Fellowship of the Rings...
Review: was AMAZING! From the first frame to the credits, the movie was absolutely breathtaking. The cast played their roles perfectly, while the music played with the movie. Peter Jackson gives great direction, and the story itself was epic. Everyone should go see this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: They didn't capture the grandeur
Review: What's up with orcs going straight up and down sheer vertical pillars in Moria, like bugs out of The Mummy? The film had a fuzzy look much of the time. The music was annoying to me, too many choir voices all the time. They didn't capture the grandeur of the book, as Led Zeppelin's Battle of Evermore did.
Rating:
Summary: Minor flaws not enough to diminish excellence of this epic
Review: The book is a fantastical adventure story with enough fans to fill a whole country of Tolkien-mad citizens. And now, after many years, comes the film. The film adaptation of this classic book. It's a tough act to follow for the director. How can you transmit all the power and greatness of the book onto a screen to delight both die-hard fans and passing movie-viewers alike? But here, its been done. Here is a film that both: a) Shouldn't leave those who haven't read the book alienated, drawing in its audience
b) Should ensure that die-hard fans don't leave the cinema quibbling about differences between the book and the film. In fact, there are some difference between the book and movie, and the story does spill over into the second book, but these are minor and should only affect the enjoyment of fans whose criteria for a good adaptation is only that it should be exactly as the book. Which, on its own, would not have made a good film. The film is also quite a way better than its rival the Harry Potter film. It reminds us of what the master story of fantasy books is and keeps us eagerly anticipating the next film.
|
