Rating: 
Summary: Fellowship of the Ring
Review: There are movie adaptations of novels that become so definitive, whose imagery becomes so ingrained in our national consciousness that to remake it would be idiotic. Examples of these movies include Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Godfather, Jaws, and Psycho. Then there are other books which can inspire many wonderful different cinematic interpretations, like Tarzan, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Three Musketeers and Wuthering Heights.Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings I believe falls into this latter category. As wonderful as the movie was, when I walked out of the theater I wanted more. And not just to see the next two installments ASAP, but also to see how Tim Burton or Terry Gilliam or Ron Howard would interpret these books. Peter Jackson has emphasised the action and suspense elements of the books over the humor and whimsy which, in Tolkien's novels, was equally prevalent. This is probably a wise commercial move. Today's audience responds more enthusiasticly to action than to poetry, but it left me missing some scenes that was in the book, even as I delighted at what they kept in, and noted the changes -- a beefed up role for Saruman, a more elaborate chase through the caves. On the other hand, it also prevents lazy students assigned to Tolkien's works from cheating by watching the movie. I remember in college reading The Lord of the Rings for the 4th time thinking about how I'd adapt the books (a total of 5 Hobbit movies, The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, Return of the King, & The Scouring of the Shire)playing up the humor a bit more than Peter Jackson chose to do & keeping the action scenes more faithfully rendered to the novel. Still, Peter Jackson has presented us with a movie filled with wonders to behold, showing us more thrills, creating a new character, Lurtz, who seems to fit easily into this interpretation of the Tolkien universe, even if his character is really just a variation on Darth Maul. He emphasises the horrific elements of the story, not surprising considering his prior films have primarily been horrors of some form or other. This is quite probably the first truly great cinematic epic of the 21st century, even if it should not be regarded as the definitive vision of Tolkien's work. That can only be found in your own imagination.
Rating: 
Summary: Beautifull yet Boring.
Review: Having an expensive production and fantastic visuals does'nt mean the movie is great. I have never read the book and I must say the movie was an over acted drama. I was yawning for the full 2 hours and 45 minutes, well maybee the ogre fight scene was cool. To it's defence it wasnt as bad as Mummy 2. But where it fails is to inovate, it's just like every other fairy tail we have seen up to date. This movie should have been done 20 years ago with star wars. Now it just has no impact. Every one who is giving it a 5 point review just has a "me too complex". Stuff it!
Rating:
Summary: A very good transition from book to movie
Review: I thought this movie was absolutly wonderful. I have read all three books and I was rather dissapointed they did not make The Hobbit in to a movie. The movie did a good job of aquainting people who have not read the books to the plot. This is one of the few movies that I was very happy with the transition from book to movie, the effects weren't corny and they agreed well with the book. I would definitly go see this movie again. I can't wait for the second.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie Ever!
Review: I love the books by Tolkien, and all I can say is finally somebody did it right! After waiting years for this, I was worried that something in the treatment of the movie would bother me. Instead, all I've been able to do since seeing it is listen to the sound track, and try to figure out when I can see it again. When it was over, I didn't want to leave the theatre. I could have gladly sat through 12 hours of this quality of movie. While that only speaks of myself, I can say that nobody...and I mean NOBODY in the theatre left their seats at any time during the course of the movie and previews. This movie is absolutely true to Tolkien's vision of the Lord of the Rings! Everything that is important to the story happens. All the great lines are in there. And some things are improved upon in a logical manner in keeping with the universe created by Tolkien. For example, the expansions of the Arwen character were entirely appropriate, given that Tolkien's use of this character was rather anemic.
Rating:
Summary: The Fellowship of the Ring
Review: I loved the movie. It was beautifully filmed, had great acting, a stirring soundtrack (with some beautiful and haunting contributions by Enya), a taut screenplay, and awe-inspiring cinematography and special effects. The film is an exciting action adventure that also has many moments of quiet, deep feeling. Tears came to my eyes on several occasions. I read The Lord of the Rings 20 years ago and loved the books. However I really wasn't expecting much from the movie as I doubted it was likely that Tolkien's magic would be captured on film. In my opinion, however, Jackson has done it. While the film does differ from the book in a number of respects it is also lovingly faithful in many others. Those who quibble or gripe that the movie differs from the book in some ways are missing the forest for the trees. They are Tolkien "fundamentalists" whose endless nitpicking has blinded them to something quite wonderful. The movie is an adventure with deep feeling. What a wonderful treat Peter Jackson has given us. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Breathtaking
Review: I can only say say one word about this movie...breathtaking. This was one of the best movies i have saw all year. I loved every minute of it, although it was long. The scenery was beautiful and the costumes amazing. The ringwraiths costumes were outstanding. It's amazing just to watch them move as they ride. This was a great story. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job. I'll be waiting in anticipation for next year when the next installment of the Lord Of the Rings trilogy is released.
Rating: 
Summary: Visually beautiful but be prepared to concentrate.
Review: The scenery is fantastic - both the real and created places! What really captured me, though, is the appropriateness of the actors for their roles. Each seemed very much at home with their character and that made it easy to accept and believe in them. The struggles they face, both externally and internally, are ones we can all relate to. I also liked the focus on friendship and bonding. Sam's devotion to Frodo is especially powerful and moving. I don't remember the books well. I read them years ago and didn't really care for them. There are likely major characters, places and events missing that may bother die-hard fans of the books, but I believe that the film does a very good, if not excellent, job of bringing life to Middle Earth. So why only 4 stars? Well, if you haven't read the books, the story is rather hard to follow. I think the movie is assuming that you will have at least a basic familiarity with the characters and story. I know that if they tried to spell everything out for newcomers the movie would run much longer than the 3 hrs it already is, but it's easy to lose track of what's going on if you don't focus on it. Still, I liked it and will probably see it again. I may even re-read the books. If nothing else, the film gets an A+ for effort.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome spectacle!
Review: Purists be damned. Especially those who can't (cough) correctly spell the names of the characters (cough). This was a fantastic movie and as true to the book as any movie is likely to be. I thought it was wonderful, and I would see it again. I'm definitely getting the DVD when it comes out.
Rating:
Summary: Here is a story that will break your heart
Review: I would like to start with a quote by C.S. Lewis: "Here are beauties that will pierce like a sword or burn like cold iron. Here is a story that will break your heart." I saw this movie on opening day, and I have not been able to write about it until now because I was so shocked. This film picked me up in the first few minutes and carried me along with it. I experienced everything the characters went through; my whole system went on overload. Before I start nitpicking, however, I would like to state two facts. 1. If you go expecting to see the movie be just like the book, you're going to hate it. A movie CANNOT be a book, and a book CANNOT be a movie. It is perfectly impossible, unless you can make an apple an orange and vice versa. 2. This is only act 1 of a three act drama. Good. That said, we can continue. This is a wonderful movie, period. Since a film consists of three elements: background, characters, and effects, I shall cover all 3, including complaints I have seen. The first is background, and I'll put the script into this topic. New Zealnd is Middle Earth. I was simply awed by the closesness of the two. The Shire is beautiful; it has that lush, green, homey sense Tolkien has in his books. Rivendell was also neat. It demonstrated nicely the collision of two cultures, Elven and Man, for Elrond was both. It is mostly Elvish, for example everthing is outdoors. However, there are very human elements as well, like warm beds and rich indoor decorations. Moria is suitably grand, yet morbid. Lorien is beautiful with lots of trees, and I liked the way there were so many lamps lit everywhere at night. Isengard is cold and impersonal, and the mining is one of the best parts of the film.
I don't see why everyone says this movie has a bad script. It is not Tolkien, but Tolkien's dialogue works much better to the page than the reel. However, statements are taken right from the book, like "shortcut to mushrooms," "...if by my life and death I can protect you, I will." "Fool of a Took," etc. Some of it is missing, true. I would have liked to hear the part about looking fair and feeling foul. But, all in all, it works. Next, and most importantly, are the characters. Don't forget that there are many, many characters in this story, and not all will be fleshed out in the first act. Frodo is done admirably well by Elijah Wood. The scene after the balrog brings tears to my eyes, as when he is trying to slip away from the fellowship. Sam is of the same caliber. He is not dog-like, yet the message is clear. He will do anything, even suffer through a journey worse than death for Frodo. Merry and Pippen are simply hilarious. I admired the script a lot for this, for in such a dark movie humor is almost impossible. However, it is done and done gracefully and successfully. Trust me, these two will steal your heart.
Aragorn is a tough and silent ranger, and I know we'll see his character grow throughout the story. I was dissapointed with Legolas and Gimli's lack of time, but I think that Aragorn and Boromir needed center stage for obvious reasons. I would bet money that the Elf and Dwarf will be main characters in the next film. For all of you fans, Legolas does walk on snow! It is a sight to see.
I have heard people say that Boromir was freaky. I disagree. For me, he was one of the most well-developed characters in the first film. He is a brave and courageous soldier who is tempted through his good intentions. We see his kindness when he teaches the little hobbits to fight, but we see his pride when he tries to seize the Ring from Frodo. In the end, in one of the best scenes, he redeems himself. He fights like a man possessed to save his friends (and his soul?), and in one of the most heart-rending scenes in the film, the fighting Uruk-Hai finally get the better of him. (It's not easy, trust me!)
Gandalf, too, was amazing. Among the Hobbits he is a nice grandfatherly old man, but watch out! He will show his ferocity when faced with Saruman or a balrog. Saruman is also very neat, a very hateful villain who goes power-hungry.
Some people say that Elrond is too mean, but I found him only stern and a little fierce. Elrond was these, for he was not in an easy position throughout the whole book. Galadriel was interesting, to say the least. I am not sure if I liked her interpretation all in all, but I think that the mirror scene where she morphs into that thing is a perfectly valid interpretation, for all of you who are complaining. It might not be yours, but the book does say that she grows terrible in the books. I rather liked that aspect, even though I am not quite sure if I agree it was that drastic. Arwen's role is small, so don't worry about any Xenarwen. She is onscreen for about 10 minutes total.
The orcs are disgusting, the hobbits are beautifully simple, and the Black Riders are terrifying. Lastly, there are effects. I will be the first to tell you I am no computer guru, but, as the average Elf on the street, I can honestly say that I didn't think "oh, effects" when I saw them. Indeed, I didn't even notice! (Big relief after Star Wars E. I, I can assure you.) The cave troll was an ugly troll, and the balrog is awesome, even if it does not agree with your own personal interpreation. The size differences are seamless. Not once did I get jarred back to reality. Frodo really looked 3'6. Gollum, though we only see his face, outline, or hands, looks like a flesh and blood creep. If I didn't know through common sense that one cannot do a balrog any other way, I would not have known that CGI exists in this story. Also, I liked the zoomy cameras. Battles are hectic and confused things, and that technique helped to further the feeling that you are there. I suppose we could have seen the conventional overhead shots, but is that what, say, Aragorn saw as he was fighting for his life? Concerning Gandalf and Saruman's duel: I think it is a valid interpretation. We don't know all that happened, and I'm sure that the two wizards didn't simply talk over coffee. The scene doesn't last very long anyways. I found it a good way to show how powerful Saruman was. He overpowered Gandalf pretty quick. Keep in mind, that in The Two Towers, the tables will turn, and I think the contrast will help understanding. I know this film moved faster than the books. There is a reason for that, I think. The book was, with the exceptions of the Shire, Rivendell, and Lorien, a continuous battle or chase. The events in the film were tightened up to ooze that very feeling. My only complaint is Lorien is hardly a place of rest. Oh well. I know that parts did have to be sped up, even though more time there would have been nice. Yes, this movie has its faults. They are very small ones, thank goodness. However, I don't think I can single any out until I see at least "The Two Towers," because until then I cannot say for sure what was lacking. One cannot honestly critique Les Miserables, for example, after only the first act. The story has just begun! My only big complaint is that I have to wait a whole year to see the next film.
Rating:
Summary: Characters finding their own heroism
Review: From Frodo and the other hobbits, to Aragorn, and including Boromir, Gimli, and Legolas, each character finds their heroism. One of the masterful touches in this movie is the subtlety - Jackson doesn't bang you over the head with Aragorn's reluctant acceptance of "his people." If you aren't attentive, you miss it, as well as a whole other bunch of things like Bilbo's trolls. I saw it on Thursday and again on Saturday. It exceeded expectations, as I went in wondering how anyone could film The Fellowship of the Rings in a way that didn't confuse the entire audience. The casting is nearly perfect (I didn't care for Elrond). The one disappointment is Galadriel, which other reviewers have mentioned. For those reviewers claiming the Gandalf character imitates Obi-Wan, bear in mind this was written decades before George Lucas dreamed up his elderly mentor. Better to say that Obi-Wan imitates Gandalf.
|
