Rating: 
Summary: Reading Tolkein's novel is a prerequisite to this film.
Review: Unlike most people, my adolescence and schooling did not include a reading of J.R.R. Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which has garnered endless fans and followers since its publication began in 1954. And now, almost half a century later, New Line Cinema has released "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," which boasts some of the most sophisticated and dazzling special effects to date in creating a world of fantasy and gothic evil. In fact, much of the movie is composed primarily of special effects, which might also explain why the story, at 178 minutes, feels empty and devoid of entertainment. Now mind you, books transfer to the screen with successful results all the time, from Hollywood's very beginning films to today's biggest blockbusters. "Gone With the Wind" and "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" are two striking examples of adaptations done right, due much in part to their ability to make the movie entertaining for those who have read the novels on which they are based, and those who have not. "The Fellowship of the Ring" fails to achieve this, and in effect, becomes long and drawn out. The story casts Elijah Wood as Frodo, a hobbit who is left in possession of a gold ring long withheld by his town's eldest citizen, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), whose age of 111 does not seem proportionate to his younger appearance. Frodo's mentor, Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), informs him of the ring's history, reaching back to the annuls of a time when the evil Sauron sought world domination with his brutal armies, only to lose the ring in battle and disappear from the earth. Strange occurrences and a search party of faceless riders known as Ringwraiths can only mean the return of Sauron, who steadily regains his power, leaving Frodo only once choice: to return the ring to its place of origin, Mount Doom, located in the dark recesses of Mordor. And so, after gathering a band of companions including friend Sam Gamgee (Sean Astin), Frodo sets out to complete his journey, unaware of the dangers that await him. Along the way, they meet Aragon (Viggo Mortensen), a strider with a knack for the sword, and various other characters ranging from all shapes and sizes and personalities. Some of these people provide some comic relief, while others maintain sinister intentions arising from the power of greed that the ring seems to emanate over them. The cast does well with all of this, though I imagine much of their time was spent in front of a blue screen imagining the evils that surrounded their characters. Wood shows a sufficient mix of heroic courage and primal fear that keeps us in tune to Frodo's instincts and thoughts, while McKellan, with his gentle voice and learned appearance, was an ideal choice for Gandalf. Mortensen is not as ideal a hero as he could be, but his performance is serviceable enough; actresses Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett also make appearances, but they're hardly worth mentioning, as they grace the screen for less than ten minutes apiece. Other actors in the famed Fellowship of the Ring are given comical lines here and there, but that's the extent of the attention devoted to their characters. The real star of the film is the stunning array of special effects, which give the notion that the movie is constantly trying to one-up itself through each new interpretation of the vast worlds and settings of Tolkein's fantasy yarn. The film has been quoted as "a movie only modern technology could create," and for the most part, this statement rings true. Each new twist of the plot brings us a newly-fashioned and breathtaking visual effect: from the high-arched ceilings of the Mines of Moria, to the vast armies that storm the lands of Mordor in the opening sequence of the film, the movie is an eye-popping, sumptuous visual feast that audiences will surely eat up. But, like the effects-vamped summer movie "Pearl Harbor," there is no soul to its story, nothing with which to garner any interest in the characters or the events and twists. There is only a minor amount of suspense supplied in the action sequences, never really reaching the high-level intensity it so richly deserves. Characters come and go, some in the blink of an eye, some from beginning to end, though they're not very interesting, nor do they have much presence in the story. For a book that has been touted as "the greatest fantasy epic of our time" by many readers, the film should have had the ability to make the source material accessible to readers and non-readers of Tolkein. The previews for "The Fellowship of the Ring" are not to blame entirely; the story is only vaguely presented, while the film's final hour is never revealed. Still, it managed to raise my expectations higher than normal, which is why I'm sitting here, discussing my thoughts on a movie that I didn't completely despise, but did not embrace wholeheartedly. To be sure, the movie will leaves its mark on history, as will its already-filmed sequels. This is serviceable entertainment at best, but I can't look at it as anything more than a lackluster blockbuster for the masses.
Rating: 
Summary: leaves me - Speechless!
Review: Unlike some of the movies that are based on books(think Harry Potter - I'm not saying that the movies are bad, but there's so much left out that it is very unnerving), this movie has barely nothing to say that is bad. The characters are well played, the plot has almost no holes in it, and above all, the scenery is fantastic. Higly recommended for anyone and everyone, old or young.
Rating:
Summary: Spectacular
Review: Unlike the animated Lord of the Rings, this film is a true work art. While it may not have stuck strickly to the novel, it stayed faithful to the story. Every character is potrayed brilliantly by an amazing group of actors. The potrayals of Gandalf and Samwise were particularly amazing. The thing that amazed me most about this film, is how real it looks. The CGI is amazing and seamless, the props and costumes look as though they were pulled straight from medievel times, and the landscape made it truely seem like a time lost to history. Like other reviewers have said, the special effects are only used to enhance the film and nver to dominate it (unlike the Star Wars Prequels) theyre never over used. Peter jackson relied more on the actors abilities and the stting to drive the film. I applaud him for thatAnother high point is the score. So often in films such as this, the score is loud and thuderous and drowns out and dominates actionsene, but the score for LOTR:FOTR is subtle and beautiful. It enhances and and movies the movie along fluidly without ever being the main focal point.If you haven't seen this film yet, please do. I don't see how anyone could be disappointed with it. It's got everything. Action, romance, drama, comedy, etc... It's a masterpiece
Rating:
Summary: practically flawless
Review: Until now, i had begun to fear that movies were really getting worse (after the recent releases of such flops like Harry Potter) and i was sure that the standard of acting, directing etc. was seriously plumetting. Not to mention that the cinemas are practically overflowing with useless storylines and characters.
Thank god for Lord of the Rings! This absoloutley flawless epic will hopefully mark the beginning of a stunning new genre of film. I could go on for hours about its good points, but if i had to pick one thing that could have been done slightly better...it would have to be the animation of the cave troll. Yes, the close-ups of its face are lifelike but on the whole its movement and posture are not altogether convincing. But dont be put off! I am still giving it 5 STARS because the supurb acting, fantastic scenery and not forgetting the exellent directing would make up for any other flaws the piece might contain (but i'm pretty sure it doesn't!).
I'd just like to say thankyou to the whole cast, crew and production team for putting so much effort into creating such a fabulous movie and i just hope that the ELEVEN MONTH wait for The Two Towers gos like lightning!
Lastly, if you haven't seen the Fellowship of the Ring yet...WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? GET GOING!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Other directors please take notes.
Review: Usually a movie made from a book is the complete opposite of the book itself. But I was impressed about this one, the storyline was almost identical to Tolkens classic. I caught a few things that were different, of which I wont metion. Dont want to spoil it for the rest of you. But thats not the only thing I enjoyed about this movie. Even though I knew what was going to happen, cause of the book, I was still caught up in it. The graphics were stunning and the acting was supurb. I would recommend this to any one. So if you havent seen it yet, get to it.
Rating:
Summary: Rudy's Review of FOTR (extended version)
Review: Utterly Fantastic. 30 minutes extra beyond what was shown in theaters. A must have for LOTR buffs.
Rating: 
Summary: The Ring hasn't come full circle yet.
Review: Vainglorious attempt to make a movie from J. R. R. Tolkien's popular fantasy novel. Let's be clear about one thing: it's a NINE-HOUR movie, not separate three-hour movies. *The Lord of the Rings* MUST be critiqued as a whole unit. *Fellowship* just abruptly stops -- it does not stand on its own. Director Peter Jackson forces you to sit through the other 6 hours if you want to see how the story ends. Who does he think he is -- Erich von Stroheim? Adding to the aggravation is that the ending will not be a surprise to anyone, even those who've never read Tolkien's books (if you think the Dark Lord Sauron wins in the end, I got a bridge to sell you). Speaking of the book, I read it once when I was 12 and loved it, naturally. Then I tried reading it again at 32 and soon grew disillusioned: I suffered through that interminable birthday party; I waited with growing impatience for Gandalf to hurry up and finish the plot exposition for Frodo's (and our) benefit; I slogged through the Shire and the Old Forest . . . at some point during Tom Bombadil's 5th rendition of that "Hey a ring-ding-dillio!" song, my eyes glazed over and I closed the book. Far be it from me to make an authoritative pronouncement on the novel's literary value, but it seems to me that Tolkien simply dressed up children's fairy tales with faux-Celtic language and deliberately archaic prose. Perhaps English majors can write papers that dissect the novel's religious (specifically, Catholic) symbolism and allegorical references to World War II . . . but so what? One can write similar papers on any number of novels by better writers than Tolkien (his near-contemporary, Grahame Greene, would be a good place to start). The obvious judgment is that the novel, whatever one's taste for it, is probably better left unfilmed. I can only recommend *Fellowship* to those with a personal interest.
Rating:
Summary: very serious and good interpretation of a great fantasy
Review: Very good movie, perhaps the greatest one turned out from a book. I just wish the next two would be as good as the first one and don't turn into disaster like the two prequals of Starwar.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie - But
Review: Very nice and excellent movie.
But without George Lucas, there would be no Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring as we know it.
Please bother to watch the 3rd DVD for more info.
Rating:
Summary: DVD at its finest!
Review: Very simply, this is the most outstanding DVD I have ever seen. None of the quality of the movie has been lost, but actually enhanced for the smaller screen. The second DVD w/ several of the TV programs that chronicled the making of the movie are good-particularly the one done by the SciFi channel. I CAN NOT WAIT UNTIL THE COLLECTORS EDITION COMES OUT IN NOV!
|
