Rating: 
Summary: Fabulous
Review: Loved this movie! One of the best, if not THE best, cinematography to be seen in our day and age. Fabulous story, flow and has it all: laughter, action heart pumping, and sadness. Can watch it again and again.
Rating:
Summary: A must
Review: Loved this movie. This will set the standard for fantasy/fiction movies.
Rating:
Summary: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Review: Magical golden rings, staff-wielding wizards and furry-footed hobbits are just a few of the strangely wonderful elements that await you in Lord of the Rings. This first installment of the forthcoming fantasy trilogy is a carefully crafted cinematic adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's immensely successful novel. Starring Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan and Sean Astin, the movie chronicles the hobbits' quest into the land of Mordor to destroy the evil One Ring. Packed full of epic battle sequences, mind-boggling special effects, and exemplary performances from its all-star cast, 'Fellowship' will not only entertain and delight audiences, but also help to redefine the fantasy genre previously occupied by such films as Willow, Legend, and the recently released Harry Potter.
New Zealander Peter Jackson directed 'Fellowship of the Rings'. Inspired by such movies as King Kong and The Beast from Twenty Thousand Fathoms in his early childhood, Jackson began experimenting with filmmaking in his teenage years and soon made the decision to take on directing as a full-time profession. Jackson subsequently produced several other special effects-laden films before beginning work on Lord of the Rings; these films included Heavenly Creatures, Braindead, and The Frighteners.
Lord of the Rings is packed full of things to love, including strong and often touching emotions, charming and fascinating characters, and its epically proportioned storyline. The sets and costumes are lush, colorful, and often awe-inspiring; Jackson has presented us with a fantastic yet eerily believable reality that is overflowing with details and subtleties. This constant attention to small distinctions makes Middle-Earth seem more historical than mythical in origin. And perhaps best of all, Jackson has been careful to apply just as much creativity and effort to the scenes of darkness and evil as to those of goodness and light; many of the sequences featuring the nine Ringwraiths, the eye of Sauron or the demonic Balrog are incredibly creepy and are almost guaranteed to send satisfying chills down your spine. The movie's phenomenal musical score adds an extra touch of grandness and splendor to the film, especially when coupled with its swooping, large-scale cinematography.
While 'Fellowship' contains no crude language or inappropriate situations, the film's PG-13 rating is hardly unwarranted; its many battle scenes are graphic and violent and may be a bit too much for younger audiences. And, while a few impatient individuals may complain about the movie's length, (some 3 hours and 15 minutes) for the rest of moviegoers, critics and Tolkien fans alike, the film will seem to pass almost instantly.
Rating:
Summary: Needs more stars....
Review: Magical, mesmerizing, mystical and purely delightful. I love the way this classic tale was transmitted to the big screen. The hobbit houses alone are worth the price of the movie! If you loved the books, then I guarantee you'll love this movie...something that I don't often say. I'm looking forward with great anticipation to the next installment.
Rating:
Summary: A Fantasy Film Trilogy that will Redefine the Genre.
Review: Magnificent, is the word that best comes to mind. With Hollywood's history of bungled fantasy genre films, with very few standing out as above-mediocre, this film will redefine the genre as "Star Wars" did to sci-fi back in the 70's. As for general effect (filming, CG, musical score) this movie is exceptional. The blend of sets and the professional, even-handed use of CG in this movie puts the new Star Wars movies and Lucas' famed ILM to shame. The new Star Wars films should be this good. The cast of great actors: Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, John Rhys-Davies, Cate Blanchett, et-al... also lends itself to making this movie great. The actors are allowed to be very dramatic and really flesh out the charaters, rather than reading lines. Also, the use of Tolkien's fictional languages by the non-human characters is impressive and provides the depth that Tolkien created by inventing the languages in the first place.Story-wise: THIS IS A MOVIE, it has a SCREENPLAY, BASED on the books by the esteemed J.R.R. Tolkien. As far as screenplay adaptations of a novel, this is one of the best by far, especially in the Extended-Edition DVD. Tolkien purists will point out that the film adaptations do not go exactly by the book or trash some of the lines found in the movie, true there are no Uru-kai in the books but some lines like Aragorn: "Not idly do the leaves of Lorien fall." in the new Two Towers movie, come straight from the book. It is the best mix I've yet seen of movie and novel and pays respect to the feel, story, ideals, and morals in the original novel(s). I urge viewers to remember that the books and movies are two different beasts. If you think that a screenplay that IS NOT a slavish, unyeilding devotion to each word in the books will offend you then I strongly suggest you avoid the film altogether and re-read the novels. For I have experienced both and find them equally a grand experience. The extended edititon DVD is, itself exceptional as well, the menus are well done and not crazy. They are tasteful and easy to navigate. That is good because of the dizzying depth of background and production material to slosh through. It will take you as long to watch the movie as to delve into the bonus features. This is by far the most well done and polished DVD I've seen. Of course the film itself is excellent and presented in wide-screen letterbox. One of my most favorite films and DVD's. The next two installments will, I'm sure be just as great.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent adaptation
Review: Making the trilogy "the Lord of the Rings" in theory is quite a difficult thing to pull off. Fans of the series follow it the way some follow Star Wars or Star Trek. Of course, pulling it all off is only a part, because people all have their own interpretation of the LOTR. Anway, the director Jackson did a great job. The story revolves around a complex universe Middle-earth, and J.R.R. Tolkien, the author, is widely credited with popularising the whole Fantasy genre (wizards and swords and all those things that delight nerds). The intro tells of the evil lord Sauron, who, with a ring of power, smites anyone who gets in the way of his dark plans. He loses it in battle however, and years later it winds up in the hands of a creature named Gollum (followed by the events in another Tolkien classic The Hobbit). To make a long story short, a hobbit (short fellows w/hairy feet) named Frodo has to escort the ring with some fellows including Gandalf the wizard, two human warriors, an elf, and a dwarf. Luckily, Peter Jackson didn't screw this up Hollywood style. They spent extra care to make the scenery just right, and chose the characters well(Ian Mckellen as Gandalf). Very long movie though, and if you aren't into fantasy even remotely, then you shouldn't watch.
Rating:
Summary: This DVD is amazing!
Review: Many DVDs in the past several months have been very good, but there is only one that can be known as the best. This DVD is probably the best one I have seen. The special features are amazing, as is the uncut version of the film. So much of this DVD is breathtaking. The movie, and especially some bonuses. The one titled "Weta Digital" and "Scale" are both truly amazing. They also have pre-visual, computer annimation of severla scenes, compared to the film. That's just one disc. I have spent about four hours watching bonus features and it seems as if I've hardly grazed the surface (it's taken me many weeks to do that much.) That's disc four. Disc three, while not as interesting as disc four, is still amazing. It tells so much of the story and the adaptation process. The uncut movie is amazing, and there's more of Gollum, who is so cool. The DVD is amazing, and there are some cool hidden surprises. One is about a 4 minute theatrical preview of "The Two Towers," which shows several scenes that never made it into the actual "Two Towers" film. Also, there is a spoof of the concil of Elrond made by MTV. This DVD is amazing, and it fits well with the amazing movie. Buy this DVD, you won't be dissapointed.
Rating:
Summary: The film that changed fantasy-Blows Potter out of the water!
Review: Many fantasy-nuts waited in line in the middle of December anticipating a movie with many yelps of the word "Success". So it was, for The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was screaming the words "success" and "epic". Being an avid Tolkien fan, I was not disappointed. It was a Box Office smash and all of the critics were right. The movie is based on JRR Tolkien's oh-so-famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, published back in the fifties. Though Tolkien himself would've hated it, I enjoyed it rather well. The movie is based on Tolkien's story of a young hobbit's journey throughout his large and magical world of Middle-Earth, out to destroy a ring. What threat is a mere ring, you say? Well, this is no ordinary ring. It was forged by the Dark Lord Sauron, filled with his power so he could rule all the other rings, belonging to elves, dwarves and men. Though the One Ring was taken from him in a raging battle, and fell in the hands of young Bilbo Baggins, now old, a hobbit and cousin to young Frodo Baggins, the Ring-Bearer. The great wizard Gandalf tells young Frodo that Bilbo has left the Ring in his possession, and he has left. Now Frodo must rage through a magnificent world to Mount Doom in the depths of Mordor to destroy the Ring, the only place it can be destroyed in. Therefore, Frodo gathers a Fellowship of 9 to battle against Sauron and destroy the cursed Ring, facing down evil orcs and the dreadful Nazgul, or Black Riders. Now, the cast. The cast for Fellowship of the Ring is pure excellence. Elijah Wood plays the young and short hobbit and Ian McKellan plays the wise wizard known as Gandalf. Many other supporting characters include Ian Holm, playing old Bilbo Baggins, Sean Astin, playing Frodo's faithful companion hobbit, Samwise Gamgee. Others include Viggo Mortensen, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee and many, many others to name. Beautiful New Zealand is the setting for Middle-Earth, with its many forests, mountains and grassy hills and plains. It's wonderful and picked the right country to play Tolkien's vast world. They all act their parts very well, especially Ian McKellan as Gandalf. Frodo is just as I imagined him as Elijah Wood is great for the role. The movie gives off a more mysterious and terrorsome effect than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone did, and Harry Potter was a great film. Though Tolkien has a darker story than Rowling has, since her books are for kids. The movie is sometimes very frightening, especially the chilling effect like some of the Nazgul's screams and hisses, the Orcs and Uruk-Hai and even the battle in the beginning. But this is how Tolkien's world works. There are many terrors throughout Frodo's world, and the Ring itself gives its own struggle to get back to its master, as the Ring can possess anyone who wears it (i.e- Gollum). And the DVD will give off some of the most fantastic features ever. And the fun gets better, as there is a 208-minute extended edition out in November, and doesn't carry any of the features the first one has, so get both if you can afford it! I know I might not! And there's also a Collector's Edition out in November too, including the National Geograpic DVD about the movie. Now, go see this movie NOW! Or wait to get BOTH DVDs, as they both have their own exclusive features! Hey, I see you eyeing the animated version! Cut it out!
Rating: 
Summary: For Tolkien fans only?
Review: Many of the comments that will be posted here will be from lifelong devotees of the 'Lord of the Rings' books, attesting to whether the film succeeds in recreating characters, places and events they have read a hundred times over. But what about the rest of us, those who have somehow managed to survive adolescence without the help of Tolkien's epic goblindegook? Is there anything for us to enjoy? Well, it often looks beautiful, more so when it concentrates on New Zealand's unexpectedly wondrous and vast landscapes, less so when it relies on CGI effects which, though superior to those in 'Harry Potter', still look like effects. There are some quite breathtakingly artful compositions, often resembling Pre-Raphaelite paintings of Arthurian subject matter, such as the hazy, dawnpink scene when Frodo and chums boat away from Cate Blanchett. There is a willingness (if not ability) to be humorous that is refreshing. Peter Jackson, to his eternal credit, avoids one of two cardinal sins of the 'historical' epic: pace. Almost without exception, the epic is always ground down to an enervatingly slow pace, as much to show off the results of a big budget (sets, masses of men etc.) as to create an appropriately solemn atmosphere. Here enormous battles and endless sets flash be in tantalising seconds; Jackson exhaustively uses as many different, arresting camera angles and movements and editing techniques to vary the cinematography and keep the film moving as briskly as possible. Sadly, he is defeated by the second cardinal sin of the 'historical' epic: script. There's nothing he can do with the risible, cod-medieval dialogue and monologues that destroy all credibility ('And I with mine axe!' 'But we shall meet Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the glade of Ebeneezer, mine loyal vassal' etc.). He can't hide the fact that every plot development - quest, picaresque gathering of friends, wise Obi-Goondolph-Kenobi guide, hero nearly dying, idyllic period of recuperation etc. - has been done to death a thousand times over the millenia, most notably in 'Star Wars'. He can't cover over the confusing and too-speedy opening exposition and explanation of the quest's context, which made the plot (for me) often mystifying, and can alienate anyone who hasn't read the book. He can't quite avoid the pitfall of unintentional humour: when one character is stabbed with three arrows he continues to fight the hordes bravely, I was irresistably reminded of 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and the scene where Arthur lops off every limb of a knight who gamely refuses to give in. On the other hand, the Darth Maul/Golem figure who becomes the ultimate tool of the enemy, suggests Maori culture, which in the context of the New Zealand locations is interesting; and, combined with the sly visual sublimation of taboo dsire in this homosocial fellowship (all these towering constructions and statues; all those ravines, pits and passages), suggests that Jackson has lost none of his sardonic subversiveness. In summary: 'Fellowship' is an Arthurian/Narnian/Robin Hoodian/Wagnerian hodgepodge with Ray Harryhausen-type monsters. These latter, including a 'Shrek'-lookalike ogre, are more nostalgically endearing than frightening.
Rating:
Summary: Not for Tolkien Purists
Review: Many people emphasize that this extended version is for true Tolkien fans because it includes more scenes from the book that were omitted in the theatrical release, thus elaborating more on Tolkien's original plot. This much is true. However, for every element that is added from Tolkien, there are several truly awful scenes that serve to further the vision of Peter Jackson, a vision that contradicts that of Tolkien. For instance, there are two new scenes with Aragorn where he makes it clear that he wants nothing to do with being King of Gondor. Tolkien was very clear that Aragorn was never in denial about his identity, but was instead awaiting the fullness of time to fulfill his destiny. I realize that in the theatrical release, the elrond character stated that Aragorn turned from the path of being king a long time ago. However, this is still somewhat acceptable. Because it never has Aragorn say what his motivations are. The impression that I got was that it only appeared that Aragorn had given up his claim to the throne, which would be consistent with the book. Another example is a scene from the book which is added that destroys the flow of the movie. The problem is not the scene from the book, but that Jackson's rearrangement of the plot makes it almost impossible to reinsert this into the movie without destroying the impact of other scene. I am talking about scene where the elves are passing to the grey havens. In the original movie there is a voice over of Bilbo saying "...and if you don't keep your feet, there's no telling where you may be swept off to". As this is spoken the scene changes to a beautiful twighlight landscape, and then a black writer ominously appears in the right of the scene. The extended version however has the voiceover occur over a scene change to Sam cooking dinner for Frodo.Then we see the elves traveling. The aforementioned black rider over landscape scene does not occur until later. Jackson was forced to do this by his rearrangement of Tolkiens plot. The black rider landscape scene occurs in the movie to set up the scene where the Hobbits are hiding from the rider under a tree root. In the book the elf scene comes after this one but Jackson couldn't do this because his elf scene has two Hobbits witnessing it, while his black rider scene has four Hobbits, thus forcing him to reverse the order of the events in the book, and also destroy the impact of the movie. This goes to show that Jackson did not simply edit the movie to make it work better as a movie, because the original story would have worked better, and the impact of the scene order could have been preserved. Thirdly there is a problem with the expanded Gimli scenes. One has Aragorn scolding Gimli for being rude to the elves. First, this does not happen in the book, as Gimli is very respectful, and second, this makes Jackson's Aragorn even less likeable, as the elves were rude to Gimli first.
Overall I would say that the extended edition is interesting, but for every element that is added from the original, there is an irritating addition from a pretentious director. By the way, there is no way that a movie can remain true to the spirit of the novel when the motivations of the characters are completely changed, e.g. Aragorn. I am not someone who is of the opinion that no movie can be as good as the book. I think that Peter Jackson could have made the movie every bit as good as the book, but instead he chose to impose his own vision on someone else's work.
|
