Rating: 
Summary: magnificent job
Review: I'm a complete Tolkien fanatic - I've read and re-read everything he wrote several times. Because of this, I don't think I'll ever be able to totally detach from my love for his works and judge "LOTR:FOTR" solely "as a movie". I also think it's far too early for anyone to judge this in terms of "greatest movies ever". The fact is it is only with time that the true stature of a movie reveals itself.Having said all that, I have nothing but praise for Peter Jackson and everyone involved in making this movie. It was visually the most stunning movie I've ever seen, and was packed with exciting, brilliantly staged scenes. It strikes me that the film succeeds spectactularily given the MASSIVE problems inherent in trying to bring Tolkiens epic vision to the screen and at the same time make a good movie. Perhaps the biggest single problem facing Peter Jackson et al was providing a satisying dramatic experience using only 1/3 of a story (imagine how satisfying "The Shawshank Redemption" would have been if it stopped 1/3 of the way through). My feeling is that many of the supposed weaknesses in this film will over the next two movies emerge as necessary elements in the construction of the whole. We'll have to wait and see of course, for final judgement should at least wait until we have all 3 pieces of the puzzle in place. I really don't think we could have hoped for a more promising start though - it may just be that cinematic greatness is unfolding.
Rating: 
Summary: Enchanting
Review: I'm a die-hard fan of the L.O.R saga ever since I saw Bakshi's
excellent adaptation to it.And ever since I heard a rumour going
on that a L.O.R movie is arriving this winter,I couldn't permit my mind to halt thinking about it.And on New Year's Eve I rushed
as fast as my feet could carry me to the theater.And I can only
describe this spectacular performance in one word....enchanting.
The Black riders'(Nazgul) look is ever-gothic,the special effects were outstanding,the acting was good and I adore Peter Jackson's transformation from a fantasy drama to an action-packed
sword and sorcery epic yet still delivering full justice to Tolkien's classic,for if he didn't change it,audiences would be bored of it's many speeches and lectures(which most people don't find entertaining in a movie).He also changed some of the characters' personalities making them much more interesting eg.Arwen Evenstar,Lady of Rivendell.So why did I give it only four stars it's simply because the way I visualized Middle-Earth isn't how Jackson displayed it.First of all,his hobbits(halflings/perian) look
exactly like men save their hairy feet whilst Tolkien describes them as children grown old.Second,the background is supposed to look more mystical(especially Rivendell)eg.starry skies and silver moons add more magic to the movie.And last,I was disappointed that they didn't include any Blind Guardian whose songs have been dedicated to Middle-Earth.Although it's still a breath-taking movie which will awestruck you with it's enchantment.
Rating:
Summary: how to judge a movie like this one?
Review: i'm already 32 y.o. so i expect to experience complicated things, REAL things. i haven't read the book yet maybe i will maybe not anyway after seeing this movie i knew immediatly there were so many things the movie could do but it didn't. So it's far away from perfect. BUT can we ask a movie so much or do we need to ask it in this way??? i find i want to and begin to think, imagine and guess so so so so so many things after i saw the movie and maybe it's the most important thing of a movie, to let us to begin to think. Yes in the future we will expect more or maybe i should say "other elements" when we see a movie but at present, it IS actually perfect enough! i am excited and thankful!
Rating:
Summary: Additional scenes make a masterpiece even better
Review: I'm always skeptical of director's cuts. Most of them merely add a few minutes of scenes that should have stayed on the cutting room floor and seem like they were added just to put a few more minutes onto the running time, but this is one director's cut that I would love to see in the theatre. The added scenes fill out the story line, add dimension to the characters and are beautifully produced just for the DVD. They blend in seamlessly to the original cut and are full of gems such as the opening scene where Bilbo gives the audience a short primer on Hobbits showing wonderful shots of Hobbiton not seen in the theatrical release. It also has many scenes of song and poems that are reminiscent of the books and add flavor to the film. I highly recommend this DVD and I only hope that we will see more director's cuts like this in the future.
Rating:
Summary: The best movie I've seen...but it's not for young kids.
Review: I'm biased in reviewing this movie, I really am. I didn't get bit by the Tookish side of me until I heard about the Rings trilogy from a friend who was eagerly anticipating the movie. When I read the first book, I really enjoyed it. When I saw the movie (the first time), I really enjoyed it. I enjoyed it just as much on the fifth time, as I recall. In a little over a year, I've read the trilogy (several times), The Hobbit several times, The Silmarillion once, and was active in a Lord of the Rings study class in a local church. So people might officially label me a Tolkien-ite. But I can't achieve this status yet, not until I learn Elvish. Until then, let me share with you my opinion of this movie. First, it's very difficult to describe the wonder and awe of the series by J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien weaves a fantastic tale of fantasy, adventure, and suspense that strikes a chord in anyone. The "Tookish" side that makes anyone want to travel, to journey, to have adventures and see or commit brave acts of valor. The basic plot is Frodo Baggins, simple hobbit (if you don't know what hobbits are, you either need to forget reading these books or start reading immediately! :) ) from the peaceful land of The Shire inherits a simple Ring from his uncle, Bilbo Baggins. Through the counsel of Gandalf the Grey, traveling wizard and friend of the hobbit-kind, Frodo comes to know that this is more than just a Ring. It is The One Ring. The Ruling Ring forged by the Dark Lord Sauron ages ago. Taken in battle, the Ring passed through different owners, almost all of whom have given in to its evil influence. Hobbits, however, though small in stature have extraordinary resilience to such evils. Frodo takes the Ring, and bears it away from The Shire, along with his four hobbit friends Sam, Merry and Pippin. He joins parties with Strider the Ranger, who assists in a conflict with the Nazgûl, the dark phantom servants of the Dark Lord, whose sole purpose is to recover the Ring for Sauron, that He may again rule all lands in darkness. The company reaches the protected stronghold of Elves, Rivendell. There is taken counsel, where The Fellowship of the Ring is formed. Great conflict lies ahead, for Frodo, for the Fellowship, for Elves, for Rivendell and for the entire land of Middle-Earth. You'll just have to buy this movie (and perhaps the books) to find out what happens! Some worry that, as in the case for many with the introduction of the Harry Potter movies, whether the books could limit the imagination when a person who has viewed the movies goes back to the books again. In some ways, this is true...you probably won't be able to picture Gandalf or Frodo in any way but the portrayal of the movie's again. But the computer-generated enhancements/additions, and excellent actors, music, props, the whole thing makes it worth it. As I said for the books, The Lord of the Rings gives wings for the imagination to soar into worlds far away, to dreams of heroes, conflict, beauty, grandeur, fantasy. (Hey, that sounds pretty cool!) Now, for any young ones out there, I must warn the parents: This movie is rated PG-13 for a reason. No sex, nudity, or other immorality, but plenty of violence. The main enemy(s) are the Orcs that they fight. These are the prime targets of the sword, arrow, and axe action. They are shot, hacked, sliced, etc.
The Ringwraiths are frightening phantoms, galloping, screaming unearthly screams that, as another review put it, make you want to shrink down in your movie seat less they mistake you for a "Shire" or a "Baggins".
The Fellowship that sets out from Rivendell meet blade to blade with orcs in the enormous dwarf-mine, and after vanquishing them, flee from a hideous (yes that word is used a lot here, but it applies a lot here) fiery balrog. There is also a scene where the traitorous wizard Saruman engages in sorcerous battle with Gandalf. Later, they meet blades with more orcs (technically, "Uruk-hai") at Amon Hen. ("Hill of Watchfulness" in Tolkien's invented language) One of their group is slain by arrows, and here also is the part which wasn't necessary to the movie, but they put in anyway. Strider defeats the lead orc by beheading him in the heat of battle. (I'll probably come across as talking this down, but I liked this movie, and I want people to know that when you think of the word "behead" you picture gruesome gory details. That wasn't the case in the movie. The blow is the equivalent of whacking off the head of a dummy-everything falls out of sight, isn't highlighted, and you don't see it again. It's "whack!" and Strider moves on. So it's up to your discretion, but I don't think it was as bad as it could have been)
All through this, however, you do NOT even see much blood per se. Strider is hit in the mouth and it bleeds a bit, and when one of them is hit by arrows, his shirt is glossy and wet around the wound, but again, not emphasized. (I've even heard complaints from the Hannibal/Saving Private Ryan group that say they were disappointed with the fact that there was so little blood)
Rating:
Summary: Excellent! Blew my expectations out of the water!
Review: I'm forced to give this film a 5-star rating, despite some problems I had with it, because anything less just isn't a fair rating. A devout lover of the novels by Tolkien, I felt some apprehension about the story being turned into a film... it is an *extremely* long and detatiled story with lots of twists and turns, a myriad of characters, and a plot that, to say the least, is a bit complicated. I felt that much of the story would be "glossed-over" in an attempt to make it more endearing to the audiences of today. But, I headed to the theater and after three hours, I found that I was pleasantly surprised. Some parts were left out, but I am aware that not everything in the book could be put into a movie. There were some things added that, actually I did like, and after getting over the "Arwen deal" (as I so lovingly call it now) I found myself in love with this movie. I still must say that taking out characters like Glorfindel and shrinking Elrond's part a bit in an attempt to give a female more screen time does not settle well with me. (Arwen is in the novel's story, but she has a much smaller part than seen on film... I would rather have had that be much closer to the book than it was). Also, one of the better parts of the book (I won't say any more than Frodo and the Sword... readers will know what I speak of) was not given as much time as I would have liked, and much of the danger we felt as readers was not accurately transferred to film. Still, very minor problems when one takes in the wondrous scope of the film. Settings are beautiful, believable and 100% true to Tolkien's descriptions. Characters are portrayed with depth and emotion. Also, one does not have to be familar with the novels... an introduction to the movie helps introduce newbies to Middle-earth and the story of the One Ring. A superb job all around... acting, plot pacing, visual effects, and an awesome film score... everything is great. Especially McKellen's stellar performance as Gandalf. Go and see this movie, even if you have never heard of this story before, nor read the novels. You *will* want to see it again, I guarantee it.
Rating: 
Summary: Tedious
Review: I'm glad I got it cheaply at a flea-market.
Rating:
Summary: A masterwork perfected!
Review: I'm going to be brief, for a change. The theatrical version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" was beautiful, and easily the best adaptation of the book that I have ever seen, until now. The extended edition only adds about thirty minutes to the overall running time, but those thirty minutes make an amazing difference. Little details that were glossed over before are added. More depth is given to the characters. More time is devoted to events that will have significant impact in the second and third films. Basically put, this version is (hard as it may be to believe) truer to the book than the theatrical version, just because it has a little more time to invest on those all-important details. Oh, and the fact that those of us who are stuck on VHS finally get a Widescreen Edition is a nice touch too. I highly recommend this film to anyone who loved the Theatrical release, but felt that too much was left out. This movie goes a LONG way toward fixing that. Also, if there were some things that those of you who haven't read the book had trouble understanding, the extra details in this version may help clear things up. That's all from me!
Rating:
Summary: ohmygod ohmygod....
Review: i'm in pain and i'm dying... i'm bloody angry with peter jackson. ... why, oh why must i wait for another 339 days (approx) for the second installment? why do i have to endure this ... burden? god... that's how good the movie is. i'm not saying that the movie is *perfect*, but i have to salute jackson for doing his best in compressing that giant of a book and actually manage to tell the events that took place in "the fellowship of the ring" in three hours. in all fairness, although i can't say that i truly appreciate all of the "artistic licence" that he took to make the story... er... more exiting, i understand why he have to do them. honestly, it makes the film more coherent for those who haven't read the book. i was sceptical at first when they announced that elijah wood was chosen for the role of frodo baggins... i expected someone older, since frodo actually started the journey when he's 50. in some sense i feel that by having a younger frodo going on this journey makes it a bit lacking... however, i have to say that elijah wood did play the character with vigor and emotion. i find the addition of arwen as distracting ... i know that they are angling for a romance thingie to supposedly *reel* in the female audience but i find that *very* patronizing. firstly, if somebody wants to see a romance/love story, they bloody well could do better than see LOTR! the time constraint itself should have made them think twice before putting in unnecessary scenes. in the end, the ones who thought they were gonna get something like titanic will end up feeling frustated AND those who revere the books will feel a 'lil bit disappointed by the whole thing! jackson just didn't have enough time... and i think there's a reason why tolkien didn't put in much story on arwen's and aragorn's romance: it is NOT the main plot... the most important elements in this tale is of courage, friendship and the battle between good and evil... it just happened that in the end, the "solution" to the long romance between aragorn and arwen happens at the end of LORT. i've heard a lot of ppl complain about galadriel. yes, that includes me. i really, really like cate blanchett and i think she's one of the best actress around, but her protayal of the elf queen fall flat. galadriel was supposed to be very beautiful and wise (unlike arwen's youthful beauty) coz elves are supposed to grow more beautiful as they live longer... not cold and scary! she is someone that is beyond reproach, certainly not one who induces fear in people! a friend of mine even thought that she is one of the bad guys! i actually like her character more compared to arwen and it makes me sad that her character was treated with such callousness. peter jackson made galadriel out of character when compared to other elves that is on the good side. *SPOILER*
and what's up with the waxen ghost look she sported when she showed frodo the mirror of galadriel? like, hello... she should be *beautiful* and *horrible* at the same time? that her subjects will love and despair over her? jackson got the horrible part all right... *END OF SPOILER* another thing that i need to mention... the movie did not show how TRULY evil the ring is... in the whole movie, we see that frodo readily and willingly give away the ring. but the truth is, the moment a bearer have the ring , it ing will slowly subvert and poison the holder's mind and make itself soo precious to him that the holder will never willingly part with it. my friend said in passing that jackson makes it seem so easy for frodo, as if he is immune to the ring's power and i think that is one of the bad side of the movie in bringing forth tolkien's vision. the good points? well... the amazing set for one. i simply, simply, *simply* love moria! what an amazing place... the nazguls are creepily realistic... the music, the battles... god, it's all perfect! and i think the character legolas is very well portrayed by orlando bloom... or that might be my hormones talking! ;-p but honestly though, i think both gandalf and boromir are excellent. there is absolutely nobody else that could be gandalf! i mean.. he IS gandalf!! and god, sean bean is great! i like his boromir better than in the book... when he said that he lived to long without hope, you could see his expression and... it just blew my mind. excellent, excellent work. and it's all so sad... so... basically that is more or less some of the pros and cons of the movie.. although i have to say that there aren't many cons in it! even if you are not an avid fantasy fan, please make an exception to this movie. it's excellent, and i must say much better than the newer installments of star wars...
Rating: 
Summary: An almost complete waste of time.
Review: I'm just going to start right off, and I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but I DID NOT ENJOY THIS FILM. There, I said it. I had never read the books by Tolkien, but didn't feel I should have to in order to enjoy the film. Apparently I was wrong. It appears that the vast majority of those who voted it the best film ever on the IMDB are those who have read and reread the books ad infinitum. And I like the work of Peter Jackson. Bad Taste, Dead-Alive, The Frighteners, and Heavenly Creatures. I was even able to look past the ultra-offensiveness of Meet the Feebles (a film that disturbs me even as I remember it) to see that there was a level of imagination within to admire. "Fellowship" is, however, technically brilliant. I found that I had difficulty telling what was CGI sometimes (and Gollum was breathtaking in that sense), but the story did not hook me, I didn't care about any of these people, and I just kept wondering when Cate Blanchett was going to show up. Her scene was my favorite, only in part because of her lime-green breakdown. Ian McKellen as Gandalf is brilliant as always, and Ian Holm is incredibly charming as Bilbo, but these are great actors and can overcome the tedious material. My favorite character of all, though, was Christopher Lee's evil wizard Saruman. He apparently reads the trilogy every year, and is the only cast member to have actually met Tolkien (and even I know that's cool). All in all, I considered a complete waste of time, and I doubt if I will spend the money to watch the other two in the projected (and already filmed) trilogy. Sorry, Peter. Make another gorefest and I'll be right there, man. But I can't support you on this one.
|
