Rating: 
Summary: nice 1/2 movie
Review: Great book, average movie only because in reading a book the pace is up to you...
For a three hour movie relatively nothing happens during the first 90 min.! Fine that it follows the book, but a great book doesn't always make for a great movie. Although the movie was made fantastically, there is very little character development and, more importantly for me, very few of my emotions were titilated except for a little fear and anticipation by the 2 hour mark.
Sorry, but Harry Potter translates (or is made) better into a movie than this one- the HP 3 hour roller coaster was by far more exhillerating than this 3 hour 'argonaut' version.
Rating:
Summary: Flashy But Flawed
Review: If I were to describe this movie in a word, it would be "fluff." "Lord of the Rings - the Fellowship of the Ring" is full of eye candy with dazzling cinematography, costumes and makeup. It also has some fairly good action scenes.Unfortunately, this is all there is to this movie. The plot is so convoluted as to be impossible to follow. One has the feeling that the film makers were trying to adapt too much story for the amount of movie time, and they broke a lot of simple rules in so doing. Potentially interesting characters come into play for only a scene or two, then are never seen again with no explanation as to what happened to them or why they were written out of the plot. It is impossible to follow the names of the characters as they are not spoken often or clearly enough in the dialogue. Which leads to another problem with the film: The sound. Watching the movie on DVD, I felt like the guy in the hearing aid commercial sitting with his wife in the movie theater,constantly asking, "What did he say?" Not only do the actors constantly mumble their lines, but the background music is so loud at times as to overpower the dialogue making it impossible to understand! I found myself several times stopping my DVD and backing up to try to catch what had been said. This also has to have among the top five *worst* endings of any movie ever made. I undertand that the producers want us to watch the next film in the series, but puh-lease! It would be hard to divulge the ending in this review, because ... there wasn't one. It was as if they ran out of film halfway through making the movie! Generally a fun and pretty fantasy, but spoiled by the very confusing storyline divergences, choppy dialogue and complete lack of character development. Not since "Dune" have I seen a movie that I had such a difficult time following.
Rating: 
Summary: utterly uh mazing!!!!!!
Review: This movie was spectacular, it has to be the best movie i've seen in about 7 years... i never saw it in the theater, or read the books, and when i first watched the dvd, my mouth was literaly agape, i was so surprised by how good it was. The acting, directing, and cinematography was outrageous, i really dont understand why it didnt sweep the oscars, it was ten times better than "a beautiful mind". The ensemble cast was terrific, i especially liked Viggo Mortensen as Aragon, and Ian Mckellan as Gandalf. Even the smaller roles, like Legolas, played by Orlando Bloom, and Galadrial, portrayed by Cate Blanchette, were so well acted. This is a movie choc full of wizards, fire-breathing monsters, and elves, yet somehow the world of Middle-Earth was totally believable. I usually hate fantasy movies, i mean, "Harry Potter", what the hell was that?? But honestly, this movie was sublime, everything about it was perfect. i think 50 years from now, it will continue to blow people away, just like it has to me..
Rating: 
Summary: The Movie is just wonderful.
Review: To be easy on the reader of this review...
PRO: Great movie with a brilliant cast, marvelous special effects (I'd say better than that Star Wars: EP II, sterile look...) I mean the whole nine yards!!! It has a the drama and the action and the basic story straigh.
CON: It's not perfect. Here's why...
1) Legolas doesnt have two knives.
2) Legolas has long boots.
3) Where is Tom Bombadil.
4) Wizard Battle???
5) Where is Glorefindel.
6) Where are Galadriel's gifts.
7) My god, whats with the moth.
8) Geez, where is Glamdring's glow???
9) Cmon, where is Fatty Bolger.
10)Gandalf is suppose to solve the goddam riddle.
11)Theres more...
My final word: Wow. That
Hmmmmm. mmmmmm. The movie is a must-see. The reason is that it stands on its own cinematic prowess, and it does a good job!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Exceedingly silly, bombastic nonsense.
Review: The whole time I was watching this, I expected the Monty Python crew from "Holy Grail" to pop out and say "We are the knights who say nee!" or "Merely a flesh wound!" I mean, this movie is just ridiculous, melodramatic nonsense. Granted, the set design is cool, but basic cinematic necessities - a coherent narrative, for example - are missing.... How these actors recited their preposterous lines without cracking up is beyond me. ... Two stars is being generous. Enjoy "Two Towers," folks. I'll be in the next theater seeing something worth my time and money.
Rating:
Summary: "Lord of the Rings" Widescreen review
Review: The storyline is great, but I have two complaints: [1] The Widescreen version is not done well; it cuts off too much of the heads of the characters, [2] the sound-track is so loud, you cannot hear the dialogue.
Rating:
Summary: Not the Book, but Close and Stunning
Review: I know there's a serious debate on about this film across the internet and beyond. My thought is that the movie stayed as close to the original book as it could, and remained true to it. Yes, there were alterations (some large), but if after you see the movie and think a moment, these are alterations which I don't think could have been gotten around. Bilbo didn't leave with dwarves, nor did they meet the elves until Elrond's house. Tom and the Barrow-Wight were removed, as well. The movie already ran over 2 hours, and if they're stayed 100% true to every detail, one book could have been a trilogy in itself. More elves, dwarves, side storylines etc. would have been truer to the book, but that would have meant more people, more make-up, sets, props etc. and in the movie were they really needed? Bilbo leaving the Shire alone with a song on his lips may have not been the original book, but it was just as effective on film. Radagast the Brown's part was removed, as was Tom's. All of this, however, basically streamlined down the plot, while actually remaining as true to the story or more so than most movies I've seen. Stephen King's books and movies are oven very dissimilar. Bram Stoker's Dracula became a love story instead of keeping Dracula as the devil incarnate which he was in the book, and even blended in parts of Vlad's real life. The list goes on and on. I disagree it could have been from another book, and I reread the novel after seeing the film. I saw it more as simply taking out parts which weren't utterly critical, adding screen drama where appropriate, and making it slightly more exciting as a movie. The book, too, is full of poetry and song, which had Bilbo or the others paused to go into all of that, I fear the audience would have been bored. In the book, it fits and works fine. The film is a masterpiece, and I rank it the best made this year. The cinematography is outstanding, with ariel effects which swept you through scenes like a roller coaster. Middle Earth becomes a living, breathing, utterly believable place you feel you've stepped into. Other tiny details, such as Elrond's dark hair, are attended to in the film. This is as much of a white knuckle-grab the edge of your seat action film as the original Jurassic Park, and if you've never read the book, it will keep you guessing like the Matrix. Much of the dialog is taken directly from the book, as well, in many cases word per word. The characters are all excellently acted, the special effects are superb, and the make up was, to my eye, flawless. In short, I highly recommend this film, to be seen as a movie, not something which is going to be word-per-word from the brilliance of Tolkien's novel. In addition to the movie, I'd have to recommend the novel, if you just can't get enough of Middle Earth and want to read the "blanks" which were cut out. That was, after all, where it all began.
Rating: 
Summary: Un-watchable
Review: This film is devastatingly disappointing. If you have ever read the book, you know how wonderful it is. The movie is a mishmash of Hollywood ....and terrible writing and acting. The screenplay has very little to do with the actual story; much is invented (very badly) and of course nearly all that Tolkien wrote (character development, story, motivation)is left out. The characters, so lovingly and complexly rendered by Tolkien are reduced to one dimensional B-movie stereotypes. Gandalf is ridiculous. No power, no wisdom, no subtle grandeur. He is Shemp in a "Soggy-Bottoms-Boy" false beard. Frodo is a perpetually wide eyed wimp devoid of courage or wit. Just awful. The other members of the "fellowship" are rendered as idiots. The rest of the cast parts are poorly written and even more poorly acted. Lots of pointless action, none of it scary or exciting. Just expensive. When given such wonderful material with which to work and what is obviously an enormous budget, the makers of this film should be ashamed of themselves. This film is an utter failure and must be regarded as one of the worst adaptations ever. I'm giving my copy away. To someone I don't like.
Rating:
Summary: Un-watchable
Review: This film is devastatingly disappointing. If you have ever read the book, you know how wonderful it is. The movie is a mishmash of Hollywood ...and terrible writing and acting. The screenplay has very little to do with the actual story; much is invented (very badly) and of course nearly all that Tolkien wrote (character development, story, motivation)is left out. The characters, so lovingly and complexly rendered by Tolkien are reduced to one dimensional B-movie stereotypes. Gandalf is ridiculous. No power, no wisdom, no subtle grandeur. He is Shemp in a "Soggy-Bottoms-Boy" false beard. Frodo is a perpetually wide eyed wimp devoid of courage or wit. Just awful. The other members of the "fellowship" are rendered as idiots. The rest of the cast parts are poorly written and even more poorly acted. Lots of pointless action, none of it scary or exciting. Just expensive. When given such wonderful material with which to work and what is obviously an enormous budget, the makers of this film should be ashamed of themselves. This film is an utter failure and must be regarded as one of the worst adaptations ever. I'm giving my copy away. To someone I don't like.
Rating:
Summary: Missing Aragorn
Review: Since I really love the book, I was maybe expecting too much from the film... as it is probably the case for many Tolkien fans like myself... The film is not BAD, but it is clear that compared with the book something is missing. While other reviewers find the film too long, I do not think it is the case. One has to consider the spirit of the book, which was not written as an action fantasy (like Harry Potter...), but as an attempt to build a mitology for England! (if you do not trust me, please have a look to the good film by National Geographic on the making of the BOOK). So what is missing, in my opinion, is a certain amount of epic. Some of the previous reviewers were complaining about the excess of emphasis in the dialogues. I think that the emphasis is probably due to a not too successful attempt to keep some epic into the film. It is just a matter of bad (or at least not so good) interpretation by some of the actors. Personally, I do not like the way Aragorn is represented in the film. One should keep in mind that he is a guy that spent tens of years fighting in wild places. And moreover, Aragorn is the King in pectore, the Heir of Isildur, the last of the Kings of Men... He should look great and magnificent as well as dark and powerful. But what we have on the screen is a good-looking Aragorn that waves is head pensively, like in a soap-opera... no epic coming from him! Unfortunately Aragorn is one of the main characters of the tale... and a not too convincing interpreter is in my opinion a serious problem. In conclusion, a better choice of some of the actors would have been desirable. As such, the film is enjoyable, but not great.
|
