Rating: 
Summary: Peter Jackson's vision is close to perfection
Review: Peter Jackson has, in my educated and thoroughly Tolkien drenched opinion, done excellent work in traslating this excellent book to the screen.
My father first read my sister and I the "Lord of the Rings" series when we were six and eight years old, respectively (nearly fifteen years ago). I have since returned to it countless times, and hold it as the standard by which I judge many of the novels I read. I thus understand the sheer IMPOSIBILITY of ANYONE ever making a completely infallible cinamatic version of Tolkien's masterpiece. I would, however contend that Peter Jackson's vision is as close as we will ever come to perfection. The movie has somehow managed to capture the individual flavor of the book, it's characters, and the environments it occupies. I do have three main complaints, but I'll air them quickly:
1. One Actor I'd change: Hugo Weaving as Elrond. I disliked the attitude Mr. Weaving brought to the character.
2. One scene I'd change: The "Wizard's Duel" scene. Reminded my sister and I both of senior citizens W.W.F. (although I do not watch W.W.F., so perhaps this opinion is not valid). And yes, I found this more unnerving than the little Arwen saves the day fling (NOT found in the books).
3. Scene I missed: My sister and I both agreed (when it comes to Tolkien, we tend to agree more than we usually do) the one scene we missed most was Galadriel giving her gifts to the Fellowship in Lorien. Especially since the gifts will come into play in "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King". Perhaps it will be included in the worthy D.V.D. edition (which has promised extra footage). All right. That said, the movie was replete with cinimatic splendor rarely seen, and the actors, while over-advertized, were not your every-day, chick-flick, reviewer's darlings. These people do Shakespeare. And they're good. Very good. Sean Bean was probably the actor who suprised me the most. His portrayal of Boromir was very authentic in its psycological quandary: to take and use the thing which would free his people from suffering, death, and possible enslavement? Or to destroy it in the knowledge that it would eventually destroy all around it? Sean Astin was perfect as Sam! His friendship, honor, loyalty, and brotherly love for Frodo all come through, although I suspect that much of his scenes in this first instalment ended up on the cutting room floor.
The soundtrack puts John Williams to shame. I had never previously heard of Howard Shore, but I will look for his work in the future. And longtime trillogy fans will be amused by the use of book chapter titles as track titles, as well as their subtle placement in dialogue throughout the movie.
All in all, I would advise most Tolkien fans to see the movie at least once- and many to view it more often...
Rating:
Summary: Tolkien as a "Homer" for Our Age
Review: Peter Jackson in his masterful Fellowship of the Ring has succeeded in raising J.R.R. Tolkien's lifework almost to a Homeric status. Homer: the Literary Colossus whose powerful refrains were echoed and reverberated and expanded down the generations by future literary giants, such as Aeschylus, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe. The film version of the Fellowship of the Ring is the first great echo of Tolkien's work. If Tolkien is the "Homer", Jackson may be the aspiring "Aeschylus." Purists and fanatics may complain and carp about this or that -- about the absence of Bombadil, or the altered dialogue and sequences. But lets face it -- this thing is now beyond Tolkien, the publishers and us all. We are witnessing the the nascent birth and expansion of Mythos. Everything about this film rings true to the text. The setting for the Shire and the Middle Earth lands through which the characters travel is exactly as I had envisioned it in thirty-five years of reading. The character performances are astonishing -- especially that of Sir Ian McKellen, whose nuances of mood beutifully illuminate the role. Above all, the undergirding moral vision of the work is also true to the original. Some other random thoughts: 1. Jackson has boldly expanded the possibilities of filmmaking. Perhaps we now know how the first audiences of Sophocles felt, as he added a third actor to the Greek drama-thereby tremendously increasing the dramatic possibilities of the medium. The bold move to shoot all three films at once, the stunning visual effects, Jackson's loving attention to detail, all extend our vision and increase the capacity of the film medium itself.
2. What makes Tolkien's work so powerful is that it is a Text with Context. Most other works of fantasy are as thin as air, but Tolkien's lifetime of loving labor bestowed on the Silmarillion has given the Lord of the Rings a depth and substance unparalleled in literature. Jackson's film adaptation both draws upon and expands this rich bedrock of context. The unbelievable efforts at realism in every detail are all in harmony with Tolkien's approach to his work.
Rating:
Summary: ...and I never thought a movie could be better than Star War
Review: Peter Jackson is a genius. Seeing this movie in the theater was amazing, but the extended scenes make for an even better movie that follows the book more closely. I was pretty scared that PJ was gonna screw up LOTR for me forever, but this is a great film adaptation.
Rating:
Summary: Pure Brilliance
Review: Peter Jackson knew what he was doing, some people argued about missing scenes, e.g. Tom Bombadil (one word: BORING) Fotr extended edition is an excellent integration with previous scenes and all new ones,
well done
Rating:
Summary: great rendition, though I'd hold off for the special edition
Review: Peter Jackson took a great risk making The Lord of the Rings trilogy. There is such a cult following to Tolkien's original work, that it is a great risk for any filmmaker to make. Especially after the Dungeons & Dragons flop made shortly before this film. The risk was so great, that I didn't even go see it in the theater. Especially when I heard that Elijah Wood and Liv Tyler had major roles in it. But I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Not only is this a good movie, but it is one of the best movies I've seen in the Fantasy/Adventure genre. Jackson is loyal to Tolkien's vision (I do admit, it has been a while since I've read Tolkien, but I think I remember correctly), and the production design and costumes are phenomenal. The attention to detail is amazing. Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Billy Boyd, and Dominic Monaghan are hobbits personified (as is Peter Jackson). Elijah Wood hasn't done that great of a job in the past, but I can't think of anyone who could be a better Frodo. Viggo Mortensen plays his role physical and dark, but still heroic. Wonderful job. And Sir Ian McKellan, well, I don't think I have to go into how great of an actor he is. These performances were excellent, the art direction is superb (they brought in two major illustrator's of Tolkien's books as consultants), and of course the story comes from one of the greatest. You don't even notice that almost three hours has passed. Most of the featurettes cover some piece of information contained in another featurette, but they still add to the experience of the movie. The Houghton-Mifflin featurette covers a lot of what went into publishing Tolkien's books. The Sci-Fi channel special is the definite best of the three featurettes. Then there are the lordoftherings.net Featurettes, which are 15 2-5 minute featurettes which cover everything from the actors to the music to the locations. They compliment the other featurettes very well, giving even more inside information on the film. There are also previews of The Fellowship of the Rings Special Edition DVD, The Two Towers film, and The Two Towers video game. It's a great movie, but I don't know if I'd buy this edition. There is a special edition coming out soon that has around 30 minutes of additional footage and many more extras, including commentaries. I think I personally will wait until all three movies have been released, and in their special edition packaging, because who knows what kind of great box set/packing extras, and so forth will be there once the trilogy is completed.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than the Theatrical Release for Tolkein Fans
Review: Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring" is certainly an excellent swords and sorcery flick, with plenty of the combat that is the trademark of the genre. If that is what you are looking for, you should feel free to buy any of the editions of this DVD. Some Tolkein fans, however, felt that the theatrical release wasn't really true to the spirit of the Tolkein's book. While the details were handled extremely well - lush and appropriate scenery for each part of the book, generally good casting of appropriate actors for each character - some of the subtleties of the book seemed lost. Boromir, for example, comes across purely as a bad guy rather than the more complex character he is in Tolkein, and the portrayal of Arwen as a swordswoman rather than an elven lady seems to send an overly simplistic message that fighting is the only thing that is important. The extended version in this special edition DVD does much to ameliorate these issues. The restored scenes provide much needed characterization that was missing from the fight dominated theatrical release. Boromir's good side is shown as well as his bad side; the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn is better handled; Galadriel is more than a two dimensional bit part. Note that there doesn't seem to be a way to view the shorter theatrical cut from this set of DVDs, so if you're primarily interested in fight scenes and don't care too much about Tolkein, you might want to stick with one of the other editions. But if you're a Tolkein fan, this special edition is probably the right edition to get.
Rating:
Summary: Important additions to a masterpiece
Review: Peter Jackson's adaptation of JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a stunning cinematic achievement, in which a dazzling new world is brought to the screen. The cast is supurb, and character interaction takes center-stage, despite incredible special effects and panoramic landscapes. Aficionados of Tolkien's work will not be disappointed, and laypersons will find themselves seduced by this exorably textured fantasy world. Particularly well depicted are the spine-chilling ring-wraiths (the nazgul), the bucolic Shire, the creation of Saruman's Uruk-Hai Army, and the primal bal-rog.
The Extended version contains many jewels that were regrettably cut to trim time off the lenghty theatrical release, but unlike most directors cuts, which feature tedious footage properly removed from the release, the extra footage makes The Fellowship of the Ring a richer and more enjoyable film.
Rating:
Summary: Does for fantasy film what the books do for fantasy lit.
Review: Peter Jackson's Fellowship is up there with the best fantasy films of all time and is as accurate as can be given three hours (to do Fellowship to the letter would probably take about 10 hours). Those who carp about inaccuracies in the representation of certain characters (the anthropomorphic Sauron for example) really need to bone up on their Tolkien (and I'm talking Silmarillion here) since their complaints are unwarranted. No film can replace the images given by a book and this is certainly not a substitute for the books, but it's great to see the book rendered with such admiration and understanding. The only problem is the year-long wait between films.
Rating:
Summary: An Awe Inspiring Rendition of the Timeless Epic
Review: Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring is an awe inspiring rendition of Tolkein's timeless epic. It is one of those rare films that brings tears to one's eyes even while it makes one want to cheer (which the audience did in several places, including the end.) My only problem with the film is that I was led to believe that Peter Jackson shot it in New Zeeland. Clearly Jackson found some way to get a camera crew to Middle Earth and somehow get some of the original participants in the War of the Ring to recreate the events they actually lived. I do not believe that, for example, we see Ian McLellan playing Gandalf. I will wager that Gandalf is playing himself.
Rating:
Summary: "One Ring to rule them all"
Review: Peter Jackson's film version of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Fellowship of the Ring" is an amazing achievement. It is an adaptation of a novel that takes place within an imaginary world with an astonishing level of geographical, historical and linguistic detail. Yet the movie manages to be understandable to viewers who have never read the book without either boring them with long passages of exposition or seeming over-simplified. The clarity of the film's script and direction achieve this result and fully justify the film's Oscar nominations. The film's visuals are amazing; scenes like those where the camera flies through the workshops and caverns of the nefarious wizard Saruman's stronghold seem like something out of an Omnimax movie. Unlike the landscapes seen on the big screens at science museums, however, the places Jackson's camera visits had to be designed and created by the filmmakers using models and computer graphics or, at least, chosen from the multitude of gorgeous vistas in New Zealand in such a way that they would match Tolkien's descriptions in the book. The details incorporated into the film from the book, both in the topography of Middle-earth and in the costumes, sets and props, are amazing to behold for Tolkien fans. For example, when the characters are walking along beside the Misty Mountains, one can see, at the far right of the screen beyond the end of the Misty Mountains, the White Mountains between Rohan and Gondor -- exactly as one would expect from the geography established in the book. The film is by no means flawless. Having read much of the commentary on the Internet over the last few years bemoaning the film's proposed changes to Tolkien's story, I had thought that the Tolkien fans who reacted in this way were being overly fanatical and not understanding the necessity of making some changes in any adaptation of a book into another medium. When I saw the film I was surprised how much of a purist for Tolkien's story I found myself to be at heart. I was especially irritated by the treatment of the sequence wherein the Elf-maiden Arwen (Liv Tyler) helps Frodo (Elijah Wood) escape from the evil Black Riders -- a function performed in the book by a male Elf named Glorfindel who is omitted from the movie. I se nothing wrong with Arwen replacing Glorfindel in this scene; I don't understand why it was necessary to restructure the sequence so extensively, making it almost unrecognizable as derived from the equivalent sequence in Tolkien's book. (I do think, however, that Tyler delivered the controversial line "If you want him, come and claim him" very well.) I also feel that some of the acting in the movie does not deserve the praise which has been heaped upon it. Elijah Wood's performance as Frodo does not impress me much at all. One must remember, though, that in practically every scene he had to deal with the complex cinematic tricks required to allow him, a full-sized actor, to play a diminutive Hobbit; therefore, the competence of his performance shows that he has a great deal of talent. On the other hand, Christopher Lee as Saruman, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Sean Bean as Boromir, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and, especially, Ian Holm as Bilbo and Orlando Bloom as Legolas are all excellent. Opinions may vary on Ian McKellen's performance as Gandalf, for which he has garnered the film's only Oscar nomination for acting; he underplayed the role a bit for my tastes, but that's his prerogative as a British actor and will be the very glory of his performance for many. The brilliance of Jackson's direction is best demonstrated by one remarkable moment early in the film: the moment when Frodo picks up the Ring for the first time. This is a crucial, iconic event -- the Ringbearer's first contact with the Ring that will necessitate his quest -- and by underplaying it, Jackson makes it far more powerful than any amount of emphasis could have done. For that scene, and for the fact that he directed two equally complex movies at the same time as this one, Peter Jackson definitely deserves the Oscar for Best Director.
|
