Rating: 
Summary: A truely timeless tale becomes a classic film
Review: There is something to be said about turning a book into a film. No matter how you go about it, somethings will have to be left out and almost everything will have to be condensed. Trying to condense one of the most popular books of the modern era, makes it that much harder because you will never make everyone happy. I say this to start because, although, I enjoyed this film like no other I've ever seen, and I have read Tolkien's books several times each, there are those in opposition to my opinion which is fine. I do believe, however, that the only way that one cannot enjoy this film, is to go into the theatre with that idea firmly entrenched in your mind. While the film is not a visual recreation of the book, which it seems others seemed to have wanted, although the prospect of sitting for ten hours to accomplish this feat hardly seems to enter the mind of those who combat the film. With that being said, this is not your silly, tongue in cheek fantasy film...ala Dungeons and Dragons or the dreadful Xena. Once you settle yourself into your hopefully comfortable seat, be prepared to be wisked away to the land of Middle Earth for the next three hours, which still go by, I think you will find, way too quickly, and have you longing for the next installment which is a(insert favorite adjective here) year away. The story is your good characters set out to destroy an item of infinite evil. A story that has obvious implications nowadays. A story that rings forth with the virtues of true friendship and doing what one can "with the time one is given."(Direct Quote) Prepare to honestly care about the characters and the turmoil that they are presented with. Having seen this movie twice the acting of this film is equal to the story they are trying to present. Elijah Wood is phenominal as Frodo. His eyes and expressions match the emotion he is trying to convey. You can literally feel his joy coming off the screen when he sees Gandalf at the beginning of the film. The rest of the cast does an equally well in protraying their respective roles, though clearly Wood steals the film...and I am not by any stretch of the imagination an Elijah Wood fan. The story does seem a bit rushed, although that is to be expected when trying to condense a book the size of the Fellowship down to three hours. The dialogue is outstanding, most of it coming directly from the books, though not all of it, and the lush scenery will make you want to book a trip to New Zealand at your earliest convience. In closing, I encourage those of you who have not seen the film yet, not to be intimidated by the book, which you have not read, after you see the first film, I believe you will be encouraged to read the book merely to find out what happens to the characters rather than wait the year for the next film, or two for the end, go out and see it...actually see it twice or three times. The important thing, though, is to definitely see it. You will not be sorry, and for a purely logistical standpoint, at 7-10 dollars to see a film, it is the most cost efficient movie of the year, between 2-3 dollars an hour. Seriously though, see it, and you, like myself, will be encouraging all you know to see it, and probably volunteering to go with them, just to make sure that they actually see it...(Right?)
Rating:
Summary: fantasy done right
Review: There really isn't much I can say here that hasn't been said before, but I thought I'd add my two cents anyway, and here goes. LOTR is, I think, the first time Hollywood has done justice to the fantasy genre. The filmmakers were really taking a roll of the dice with this material, and they pulled it off amazingly. Peter jackson focused on what made Middle-Earth such an intriguing place to visit in the first place: the characters! Sure, the settings and creatures were always part of the fun, as well, but its the human side of every story that matters. With things like the Star Wars films, you get the feeling that those movies are just exercises in technology. Take the Phantom Menace DVD and its audio commentary--Lucas and the tech team did nothing but comment on the special effects and how they were created. Not one word was spoken with regards to the characters and story. And why? Because there really wasn't much of a story and the characters were so thin you wouldn't have noticed them if they stood sideways. Peter Jackson has proven himself a storyteller's storyteller; he understands how to make his characters sympathetic and believable. George Lucas, however--much as I've admired him in the past--has admitted to not being much of a writer, and it shows. He hides his lack of talent in that department with special effects, the reason his new movies seem very cardboardish at the same time they're beautiful to look at. LOTR dared to be beautiful while still giving us a story driven by great characters. Of course, Jackson had them already mapped out for him, but he still had to adapt them to the screen within a limited timeframe. That meant he was skating a fine line between true development and the usual abyss of action-movie heros and villians. Luckily for us, he managed to skirt that abyss and give audiences something more enduring. Now, at the risk of sounding two-faced, my all-around favorite scene in this flick was a big action piece--the battle and chase through Moria. Still, without the concern for the charcters, we would not have cared who made it out of there and who didn't. Gandalf's plunge into the pit gave our guts a wrench, and was incredibly presented. I was not originally planning on buying this DVD because I've seen the movie three times, but having thought about it, I'd say it'd be worth the money. LOTR is a milestone--fantasy done right! Somewhere, I'm sure, Tolkien is lighting up his pipe, kicking back with his buddy C.S. Lewis, and smiling with approval. "Well done, I thought," he's saying. "Be interesting to see what they've done with the next two..." Great movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Feelasleep of the Ring
Review: There was no bigger fan of the books back in the 70's than me. My wife bought the DVD against my recommendation. I had seen some of the scenes at HT demo's and knew it to be pretty violent in spots. To her credit she sat through the whole thing and demanded that we either buy or rent the Two Towers ASAP! Well I know I fell asleep at least once during this multi-hour epic bore. Thankfully it wasn't during the only action sequence in the entire movie. This movie could have been edited down to an hour and been much more enjoyable. It is a commentary on our times when folks think this is great movie making. The Two Towers is no better. Snore!
Rating:
Summary: It worked. Against all odds, it worked.
Review: There were ten thousand ways it could have gone wrong, but it was right -- beautifully, lovingly right. First, the characterizations were exactly correct. Ian McKellan simply was Gandalf. Ian Holm was a perfect Bilbo. The minor changes in Aragorn, Arwen, Pippin and Merry were acceptable and reasonable, given that a lot of scenes had to be cut, and therefore some motivations had to be changed. (For instance, with no time for a conspiracy in the Shire, Merry and Pippin needed a new way to join the party.) Sean Bean's Boromir, Sean Astin's Sam and Elijah Wood's Frodo worked well. I won't say much more about the characterization, because I never thought about actors or characterizations during the film. I just watched Frodo's journey. But the strength of The Lord of the Rings is more than the characters. The major character in any trip through Fairy-land is Fairy-land itself, and the books contain brilliant and emotional descriptions of the various places in Middle-Earth. They succeeded.
I could recognize every place immediately. Bag End, Bree, Rivendell, Moria, Caras Galadhon, the Argonath, Barad-Dur, the Cracks of Doom, Caradhras and Orthanc were clearly and obviously Bag End, Bree, Rivendell, Moria, Caras Galadhon, the Argonath, Barad-Dur, the Cracks of Doom, Caradhras and Orthanc. With one exception, I can't name *any* way in which these places don't match Tolkien's descriptions. C. S. Lewis was once asked why he liked Shakespeare so much, and he replied, "Because he takes me somewhere I've never been before." By contrast, this movie took me back to a place I *have* been before -- the end of the Third Age of Middle-Earth. It felt much like going back to my old college, or the house I grew up in (which, in a very real sense, it was). Peter Jackson's direction impressed me with both how true he was to the original, and with how and when he chose to deviate from it. Tolkien spends much more time describing things that Jackson shows in a single shot. Jackson spends more time on movement and combat and other things that take time to show. He was equally concerned with being true to Tolkien's vision and with making the best movie possible (which is not the same thing as filming the best book). He did not balance the two goals - he aimed at both. Examples: many things that are discussed in the Council of Elrond are actually shown in the movie -- dialog about action is not as cinematic as action. The council itself takes a different course, which gets all the essential information in quickly. (Consider thirty minutes to an hour of a bunch of people sitting around and talking. As much as I'd like to see that scene, imagine the effect it would have on non-Tolkien fanatics.) Some events were moved because of the necessary time compression. Since the long discussion in Bag End about Gollum's origins was cut, the lines about Pity were moved to the first time we see Gollum. That kept an essential plot point, while reducing the amount of exposition. Some changes were dictated by the medium. The thoughts that went through Frodo's mind near the end turned into dialog so that they could be shown on screen, so he had to tell it to somebody. It seemed a reasonably elegant solution. There are several things that are put in for the fans but are unremarked on and will be ignored by the others. The sign on the gate, Legolas walking on the snow, some chapter titles turned into dialog, Bilbo's book and maps done in Tolkien's hand, etc. Mostly, the effects were wonderful -- both technically and artistically satisfying. There was one special effect that left me cold. (No, I won't identify it.) But, oh the Balrog! And the Fords of Bruinen. And the Eye of Sauron. And the pits at Orthanc. And,... but enough. The effects made the fantasy real. One comment about the fighting -- Gimli fought like a dwarf, Legolas fought like an elf, Boromir fought like a warrior, Aragorn fought like a loner, the troll fought like a troll, the Uruk-Hai fought like a group of people who weren't good at cooperation. I thought Bob Anderson put a lot of attention into individual styles. I don't agree with all the choices made. But it is a worthy and delightful vision of Middle-Earth. It was clearly a labor of love, by people who loved Tolkien and loved films.
Rating:
Summary: Not meant to replace our favorite book...Fantastic *movie*!
Review: There were two ways to enter the theater for this film: sulking, picky, wondering whether Peter Jackson's vision would live up to one's own; or optimistic and faithful, realizing the joy of seeing a great story properly filmed for the first time on the big screen. Over time, I began to see the wisdom of choosing the latter, and I'm very glad for it now. The film opens with eight minutes of prologue (narrated by an unseen Cate Blanchett as Galadriel) on the history of the One Ring and the reason for the title "Lord of the Rings." Seeing (and hearing) Sauron approach the high command of the Last Alliance, as well as the ensuing hand-to-hand melee, was worth my trip alone, I must say. After that, I knew I wasn't in Kansas anymore! Of course, there were additions and omissions. How could there not be? "The Fellowship of the Ring" alone would be a ten hour film without omissions, and would make less sense (and appeal less) to a Tolkien-challenged public without certain additions. So, in line with my optimistic appraisal going in, I prepared myself for such. Some were expected, such as the absence of Tom Bombadil, the expansion of Arwen's role during the film's first half, and the emphasis on Saruman and his uruk captain, Lurtz. Some were not as expected, such as Aragorn not wielding Anduril, or even Narsil (apparently for the duration of all three films), Saruman's full allegiance to Sauron directly through the Palantir (and other Isengard-related liberties), and the emphasis on racial communion augmented by Elrond's actually having summoned the Council himself. In addition, there were numerous other petty strayings from the authentic that I won't mention here, but that again ties back into my previous point about the proper attitude going in. At least you'll finally find out whether Balrogs have wings or not! My next point ties more closely into personal opinion, but I prefer Ted Nasmith's interpretation of Tolkien's characters and vistas to other artists, and it's worth noting that Peter Jackson prefers Alan Lee and John Howe, and that this preference showed: Orthanc's design, the orkish armor and weaponry, as well as thematic elements for Barad-dûr, Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, and Rivendell all reflected a leaning toward Lee's often dark, gothic, watercolor style and Howe's more traditional tabulation of the fantastic. Nevertheless, Nasmith's "Anger of the Mountain" portraying Caradhras was pretty evident at one point, and I was gratified that it was. On the whole, the film's makeup and effects work were actually better than I expected, and I expected a lot. The relative sizes of the characters could have been a major problem, but I never found myself leaving the suspension of disbelief because of it, or anything else, for that matter. More than that, the actors filled their respective roles with true passion and authenticity, another potential hardship averted by players deeply and intuitively desirous of rendering an accurate and authentic portrayal of characters beloved by millions for decades. This desire, and the dedication which resulted therefrom, showed through with remarkable clarity and éclat. I had been concerned with some of the casting decisions early on, but those fears have been authoritatively allayed by brilliant performances. Whether a fan or aficionado of the books or not, this is one film that leaves the world a better place for having been made. Admittedly, three hours, thirteen minutes (including trailers) is quite an investment of time, not to mention money, but I believe this venture to be an adventure worth seeing. Oh, and for those who really haven't read "The Lord of the Rings" yet, do yourself a favor and make a stop at the library or bookstore on your way home from the theater, because you won't want to stop investing in quality entertainment just yet. I only wish all film adaptations had source material this good...
Rating:
Summary: this isn't a movie. it's an epic masterpiece
Review: There will never be anything else in this world like this movie. It is incredible, it is brilliant. There are so many good things about this movie that i could write 10,000 words. It leaves you breathless as you experience the magic and wonder of the movie. You will feel like you are in middle-earth immersed in it's beauty. To make the movie even better there is a superb score that will go down in history. I reccomend this to anyone who enjoys movies of any sort.
Rating:
Summary: Not as Good as the Theatrical Release
Review: There's a reason the extra scenes were not included. For the most part, they're boring and don't add anything to the story. This doesn't apply to all of them, of course. Some of them I enjoyed. The new scenes I especially didn't enjoy were at the opening of the film (Concerning Hobbits, etc). However, these scenes could make it easier for those who haven't read the book to understand hobbits. I must admit that the DTS track is a noticeable improvement over the original Dolby Digital. I'm not one for special features, so they make very little difference to me. I loved the theatrical release, but this extended edition tends to get boring at times.
Rating:
Summary: The Stars Were aligned when they made this film!
Review: There's a reason why the story of the Hobbit is called "There and Back Again" because when it comes to the Lord of the Rings, you'll revisit this story over and over again. I have the Extended DVD which totally rocks! The stars seemed to have aligned perfectly when Jackson's team and the cast of actors in this film got together and made this wonderful movie...all three parts nonetheless! The visual imagery is incredible! Completely stunning. The costumes, the mannerisms of the races of Middle Earth, Legolas and that archery work -- and most beautifully done was Howard Shore's film score which completely encaptured the emotion of the film. I have never heard music so brooding and so eloquent that it absorbed into your senses. Enya's "Aniron" is lyrical, sweet and soulfully ethereal that it gives me chills every time I hear it. While all the actors in this movie did a wonderful job, I'll have to say the one who really made his mark is Elijah Wood. This movie was his baby. He was the one who stood out -- not just because of his gorgeous blue eyes, either. He is Frodo Baggins! Have you ever watched a movie and go, "They couldn't have picked a better person to play that character. He totally fits that role!" It's amazing how he got the role. Peter Jackson was casting and still hadn't found his Frodo, then all of a sudden this audition video shows up. The rest is history. As I said before, the stars were aligned! His true colors come out in Frodo Baggins, and by his performance, you can tell that Peter Jackson took full advantage of those abilties. I still think his best role is Mikey Carver from Ice Storm. It's not often you come across big scale, epic movies with lots of action and emotional drama at the same time. The orginal Star Wars Trilogy was that way. Good dramas tend to be smaller films and more intimate. Big scale block buster movies tend to be action buffs devoid of drama. Lord of the Rings seems to defy that rule. It has both, and I do not envy Peter Jackson's task for trying to keep those elements together: satisfy the Tolkien fans, keep true to the story as much as possible, work long hours, change the script a bazillion times, work with big sets all over New Zealand with big crew, big cast, extras, stuntmen, props and costumes made with excrutiating detail (and not just one but several sets of the same), make the music perfect to suit the theme of the movie, pressure of success of the film because New Line put a lot of money on the line...and to do that with all three movies in the span of little over a year not shot in any sequential order....whew! That's a tall order to handle. Thank God Jackson was blessed with a brilliant cast and crew. Otherwise, this movie could have fallen flat on its face. Then why does it seem to me Fellowhip didn't get its proper due? It won a measely 4 out of 13 oscars. This deserved at least 7 -- just for the reasons I mentioned above. Think about the effort that went into making this a success. Academy, what's with you, Mon? But the best thing overall about Lord of the Rings is the positive experiences that came out of this film, not just the oscars and the financial success. If you read the interviews from the cast, everyone had a great time doing this movie no matter how tiring it got to be. There's a lot of honest pride in this film, and it shows. It was a huge team effort and great friendships came out of it. That is not something you see in Hollywood everyday. If I were an actor, I would have definitely wanted to work on this movie set. It would be the envy all over Hollywood. Lord of the Rings has hit home in the hearts and minds of people all around the world. So in retrospect, one little statuette couldn't do justice to that type of influence. This movie is phenomenal!
Rating: 
Summary: The never-ending story
Review: There's a telling moment at the end of the new "The Fellowship of the Ring" DVD in which director Peter Jackson and his co-writers try to cram in their final thoughts. Wait! Jackson seems to be saying as the credits roll and the commentary track fades -- There is so much more to tell. We've had only 3 1/2 hours! Jackson's love of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Rings" trilogy spills across New Line's "special expanded" four-DVD set of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring." The feature packs a whopping four audio commentaries, almost 15 hours' worth. An encyclopedic collection of other extras ensures no detail is left unexamined. (Obsessives can even return to last summer's two-DVD release of the title, which offered yet another set of featurettes.)
All this makes "Fellowship" one of the most-examined pieces of filmmaking since, say, "The Zapruder Film" or "The Battleship Potemkin." How much is too much when it comes to DVD content? This sprawling set surely tests those limits. At the center of the new "Fellowship" DVD is Jackson's "alternate" version of the film, one that adds a half hour, mostly character development. (Jackson rejects the label "director's cut," saying it implies unhappiness with the original.) Jackson even takes the opportunity to stir in material that synergizes with "The Two Towers," indicating he's aware that many DVD viewers are now about to see part 2 of the trilogy in cinemas. Jackson's extended "Fellowship of the Ring" renders the film more coherent, likable and elegantly paced. Combined with the pause-and-play advantages of the home theater environment, the DVD has the paradoxical effect of making the film seem shorter, even at a sofa-spring-testing 208 minutes. "The wonderful thing about DVDs as a different medium to cinema is that the experiences are completely different," Jackson says in his commentary. "The expectations of pace are different." "Fellowship" has the same solid, CG-filled look as the theatrical release and the previous DVD. Flesh tones hold true; golds tempt with their fiery beauty; blacks lead straight to hell. Audio options are for DTS ES 6.1 and Dolby Digital EX 5.1, both capable of rocking viewers' alternate worlds.
Rating:
Summary: Not a bad attempt
Review: There's no way FOTR could've fit into 3 hours, so I don't blame Jackson for the shortness of the movie. I enjoyed the vistas, the loyalty in the fellowship, and the humor ("What about second breakfast?"). But I did feel somewhat cheated by the movie for these reasons: 1. Storytelling. The events are pretty much straight, but that's not what makes a good adaptation. The movie revealed too much, too soon, because it told the story from 3rd person, and told the events in chronological order. The book keeps us guessing and only reveals as much as Frodo and the fellowship knows. The narrated scene at the beginning need not have been told if Gandalf told it later (while the screen fades to a flashback scene). That would be much more convincing. 2. Hobbits are made out to be bumbling and unskilled. Frodo drops his sword on at least 2 occasions. Pippin knocks the skeleton into the well (yes, it kinda happened in the book, but it was NOT the catalyst for the coming of the Orcs). Merry and Pippin are carried away by the Orcs without a fight at the end. 3. Important scenes were changed or omitted. What happened to Frodo's elaborate plan to leave on his birthday? The book was more organized and relaxed; plus Merry and Pippin did NOT just bump into Frodo and Sam by chance. Didn't Frodo have the ring on a chain while Gandalf was off researching? He didn't keep it in the envelope! Where was the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli? 4. Skewed concept of time. Wasn't it about 20 years between the departures of Bilbo and Frodo? Where's the sense of the journey? The movie went from danger to danger, with intermissions of walking. The book was more balanced between rest and danger. And yes, the book had many happy times and songs to show for it. I came into the theater after hearing that this could be among the top 10 movies of 2001. To me, it wasn't mediocre, just not nearly as captivating as the book.
|
