Rating: 
Summary: Long Movie
Review: Lord of the Rings was good, but not great. It did keep me entertained through the unusually long movie and I only had to quiet my stomach grumbling twice. The visual effects were at just the right level so as to add to the movie, but not be so huge that they become the action - it deserves 5 stars for that. The acting was mediocre, but I preferred to have the relatively unknown actors as opposed to Hollywood stars. This movie, however, did not make me want to run out and read the books again. Tolkien set the stage for the modern medieval sci-fi adventure, and I wish he could have taken part in this film. I know I will go to see the sequels, but only because I enjoy the plotline. If I hadn't already read the books I would not have been interested in even finishing the 2 1/2 hour movie.Why 4 stars?:
While everything seems to be in place, it just felt as though it was missing something. Perhaps it is only suffering from being overhyped and cannot live up to it, but I was hoping for something more. Still, it is not a waste of your money. This movie is entertaining and you will be get wrapped up in the characters, though the ending certainly does leave it wide open for the sequel.
Rating: 
Summary: typical Hollywood raping of a fine piece of literature
Review: Lord of the Rings was pretty much everything I expected it to be. I don't really expect very much of Hollywood--where very little real art is created and most of what gets produced are overpriced, overproduced, sensationalized, muscle-flexing action extravaganzas for persons of advancing age and limited attention span. If you think that the film will even remotely match the aesthetic of the book, banish that thought the instant you turn on the movie.
Clearly, a certain amount of the spirit of the novel is bound to be lost when it hits the screen. But Peter Jackson might have attempted to create the cinematic version of Tolkien's razor-sharp imagery, through shots of the creatures, that, like Spielberg's Jaws, don't reveal their full bodies and keep you in suspense.
Ian McKellan is a fine British actor, and Elijah one is a decent one, so one would expect there to be some chemistry between Frodo and Gandalf in the film. WRONG. Whenever Gandalf and Frodo seem to develop the beginnings of a tender relationship, one in which they care for each other visibly and we can actually feel the sacred bond uniting them that was so affecting in the novel, Jackson immediately stamps out whatever chemistry there is, through a vulgar horror movie special effect or another tiresome this-is-the-most-important-moment-in-history line.
There are some pretty cinematic views of the Shire, and some comforting exchanges between characters, that attempt to evoke the spirit of the original--of a blind but cozy group of creatures, but a dreadful storm looming in the distance. But he undercuts himself here, too, through many vulgar and gratuitous special effects displays, such as the pointless and unartful firing off of fireworks by Pippin and Merry.
Whatever merit the film has is lost as soon as the Fellowship reaches Brandybuck. From here Fellowship tumbles rapidly downhill. There's probably about five pages of dialogue in the remaining hour and forty five minutes of the film. The plot almost completely vanishes, after nearly two hours of Peter Jackson smothering us with chases that have scant tension or suspense and other idiotic displays of spectacle, mercifully, Fellowship ends.
Rating: 
Summary: Lord Of The Rings ruled
Review: Lord Of The Rings was so good. There was never a scene where it was boring or they were just wandering around. There was always action somewhere. My favorite part was when the troll came into the mine. The movie was great so I give it 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST MOVIE OF 2001
Review: LORD OF THE RINGS WAS THE BEST MOVIE OF 2001. THE SECOND LORD OF THE RINGS IS ALSO THE BEST MOVIE OF 2002. THIS MOVIE HAS GOOD ACTION AND AN GOOD STORY THAT WONT LET YOU DOWN.
Rating:
Summary: Simply the best.
Review: Lord of the Rings, a book that so many have loved for so long, now placed on the silver screen by Peter Jackson and many more. Nearly as perfect a Tolkien's work, this adaptation must be the best that has ever been made, and is sure to please even the most strickt of Tolkien's purists. I love this set, and don't know what I would do with out it. If you love Tolkien, than there is no way that you would not love this. I can see that there are many more reviews that go even deeper into the set, so I will stop here. Just know that this IS the BEST movie ever made in the eyes of millions, including myself.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible. 18th april 2004.
Review: Lord of the rings, not my type. Fighting,alot of action a lot. I do like the actioning films but not this type. By looking at the box, you can tell what sort of film it is going to be. Glad i didn't go and see it at the cinema couldn't of sat through 3 hours. Too much fighting.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings is lord of the movies!
Review: Lord of the Rings, the enthralling trilogy of books, is now an epic motion picture trilogy. The first installment of the Rings set is the Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson did an excellent job of keeping most of the book in tact, though a few bits and pieces were missing here and there. J.R.R. Tolkien fans and non-readers alike will enjoy this dark and mysterious ride into Middle-Earth. If one has never read the novel, they will be able to pick up on the plot quick enough, seeing as how, at the start of the movie, they do a quick lesson in the history of Middle-Earth and the Ring. This it is not a childrens movie (please note the PG-13 rating) so don't let your kids watch it unless you know that they won't get scared, because there are some scenes in which the characters are engaged in battle. With an all-star cast, including Elijah Wood (North, The Ice Storm), Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters, Richard the III), and Viggo Mortensen (28 Days, Passion of Darkly Noon)you can't go wrong with this movie.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best films ever made
Review: Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Rings, explores the themes of love, honor, duty, sacrifice, working together for the greater good, and accepting responsibility. And it does all this with a light touch, not forcing any moral ideals down our throats. The film is truly fabulous to look at, containing some of the most beautifully imagined and created sets and backdrops I have ever seen on screen. We are also treated to the great natural beauty of New Zealand, no small bonus. The battle scenes were well choreographed and acted, the main characters either endearing, intriguing, or both, the Ringwraiths truly terrifying, and the story was laid out for us with just the right mix of horror, humor and drama. I absolutely loved it.
Rating:
Summary: A Visual Adventure
Review: Lord of the Rings, the popular book, has been made into a trilogy. This first release for the most part does wonderful justice to the book, with an incredibly rich visual tapestry, and continuous, non-stop action. Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler and Ian McKellen are all excellent, and the Hobbits, who are loyal, brave and small statured charmers, are lovingly depicted. The movie is long, but keeps you enthralled throughout; until the abrupt and unsatisfying ending, which sets you up too obviously for the sequels.
Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Blue Screens
Review: Lord of the Rings, though not nearly one of my personal favourites, is certainly one of the most important English language books of the twentieth century. It was a great shame to see that Peter Jackson's film version missed the soul of the novel and failed to convey Tolkien's rich fantasy world of Middle Earth. For anyone who has read the books, the film version comes across as a pale and bare bones translation - omitting some of the very best parts, and getting most of the book's atmosphere completely wrong. For instance, in the scene where Frodo becomes aware that Gollum is following the fellowship we actually see Gollum. In the book, Gollum is merely hinted at by the sound of his bare feet slapping on the cold stone floor. The Ring Wraiths, though quite good in the film, are not nearly close to the pathetic, blind, sniffing creatures twisted by evil that they are in the novel. To highlight all of the discrepencies between book and film would be both time consuming and pointless. Suffice it to say, however, that in omitting or changing so much of the book, Peter Jackson has failed to capture the true atmosphere of Middle Earth. His film seems more like any other Dungeons and Dragons world than Tolkien's fully realised one.
The usage of CGI was far too frequent and noticeable. The sweeping, blurred, battlescene at the start of the film hardly compares to other film's battlescenes (such as Ran, Kagemusha, Waterloo, and so on) where no computer enhanced imagery was used. There were also some laughably inept moments of CGI (watch for the lack of orc bodies after the fellowship escape the Dwarf's tomb, and then the hilarious shot of the party running along without their upper bodies moving. The effects standard here made me think of a Playstation game's graphics).
On the plus side, the film was fairly well cast. The inclusion of Sean Bean and the legendary Christopher Lee added a lot of class to the film. Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn was also quite good, though Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett seemed to be wasted as Elrond and Galadriel. Legalos and Gimli also had next to nothing to do other than prattle or prance on like Dwarven and Elven cliches.
It seems a shame that Jackson's hamfisted direction, and the ever present (and thoroughly mediocre) soundtrack squandered an excellent opportunity for a classic film. Though entertaining, the film never reached the heights that it should have. See the Ralph Bakshi animated version instead.
|
