Rating: 
Summary: Doesn't Get Any Better Than This
Review: Well, that's about all I can say if you haven't seen this movie yet. If you have, you must agree with me. Visually stunnning (thats what $300 does), superbly acted, fueled by an epic soundtrack, and of course, the greatest fantasy story ever told, Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Ring's" is nearly perfect. Its only flaw: it ended. It'll be an awfully long year before we get to see Jackson's masterful rendition of Middle Earth in "The Two Towers."
Rating:
Summary: The spirit of Tolkien is alive in this movie.
Review: I had to edit my review, now that I've re-read "Fellowship". A couple of things for the critics of this movie:1) Yes, the movie is long. Have you seen the book(s)lately? If Jackson had tried to fit the story into the standard 2 hr. package, it would have ended up like the Bugs Bunny version of Wagner's Ring Cycle (I can see it now ... "We must destwoy da wing and banish the dawk lowd fowever!"). If you've read the book, then you know that there were major deletions already. (see below) They put in what they had to to make the story work. 2) Please stop telling us that Sauron should'nt appear as a physical being. YES he WAS a physical being when Isildur "cut the ring from his hand" (which would be quite a feat indeed if there were no finger to cut it from). While the ring was lost he re-manifested as the "lidless eye engulfed in flame" but the text makes several references to his early human-like form and even described him as wearing dark armor, etc. In fact, I would tip my hat at the movie makers for trying to receate Sauron exactly as Tolkein described him. 3) A movie should be faithful to it's source, but the point of making a good movie is to make a good movie. If the movie had given the same proportion to the story that the book did, we would have found ourselves watching nearly two hours of Frodo and company just getting out of the Shire. Would you have wanted to sit through every single song and poem? Some things would have not translated very well. Other things were omitted simply for length's sake. And while I missed Tom Bombadil, I realize that his segment of the story was a likely candidate for exclusion because his character COULD be removed without harming the structure of the plot. You should also notice that he was omitted from the animated version as well. I will repeat the statement from my original review: No film or television endeavor of this magnitude will be complete. They will, by nature, have their shortcomings. Like the "Dune" series, we must appreciate the best efforts of the interpreters. This movie has everything I could have asked for. The plot is intact, even if some of the elements are altered (and a surprising number of details that are, in fact, well attended to). The visuals are stunning, the cinematography is gorgeous, the music is effective, the action is tremendous, and the characters are well portrayed by the cast.
This is a movie that could have been easily done very poorly. Indeed, those of us who are sci-fi / fantasy enthusiasts are so often disappointed. However, it is obvious that this is no effort that calls for an apology. It is a gem of a work, and deserves the accolades that it has been receiving. I look forward to the remaining movies with anticipation.
Rating: 
Summary: Bored of the Rings
Review: Three hours! Zero character development and even less development of the relationships between the characters. Extremely elaborate setup for something (I guess this is the mystery), 2 1/2 hours of which (at least) was dedicated to the seemingly same dark battles with underexplained evildoers...
Rating: 
Summary: If you think "Harry Potter" is too long...
Review: Okay, for starters, NO, I HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK! So I'm sure those of you who are devoted to the book will think I am nuts when I say that "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship..." is way, way, way too long at 3-plus hours. Is it interesting? Yes. Does it have fantastic acting? Yes, especially by Sir Ian McKellan, who brings sparks of excitement to the movie every time he's in a scene (Viggo Mortensen runs a close second). Is it an epic story? Yes. But this film would have much better (and I bet would get more repeat business) if at least 45 minutes had been cut. The scenes with Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler are unnecessary (at least for this installment; I'm guessing their characters pop up again in the trilogy. Otherwise, what was the point of putting them in the film at all?!), and the Fellowship's trek (while at times exciting) goes on for way too long. I kept waiting for the end credits to roll, only to discover that, no, the fellowship is forging on to yet another place. By the end of the movie, I was a bit jealous of the Fellowship lads because, with all the treking they did, their butts - unlike mine - were not asleep! It's not a bad movie, but wait for it to come out on video when you can watch it in the comforts of your own home.
Rating:
Summary: This is the one Ring!!!
Review: To start of with, this is one of the best films of the year, hands down. Being an avid fan of The lord of the Rings trilogy, and having read all of the books and the books that come after i think it is a great film. I saw it the day it came out, and I do not regret seeing it at all. It is true that Peter Jackson, the director, did take out some major parts from the book, he still made an extremly good movie. The characters where true to the book also, and the casting....they did a perfect job at casting the characters. It was this or the acting that was the best part of the movie. The computer graphics are almost seamless with the actuall film. one of the best parts of the movie are the battles. Just wait till you see this. All together this is hands down the best movie I have ever seen and I think it is generating hype not seen since Titanic and is truly a trilogy to rival Star Wars. Some fans think that is is not a good movie. This is not true. These are usually mad fans who are so set in there ways that they cannot see that Peter Jackson was not making this film for only the fans but is making a movie for all people to enjoy. JUST GET THIS MOVIE and read the book.....
Rating:
Summary: A truly wonderful start to the trilogy on film!
Review: Somewhere over the last 20+ years I lost count of the number of times I have read LOTR (and The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc.). I have been waiting for this film for over 3 years, so to say that I had high expectations would be an understatement! I am happy to say that the film lives up to all the hype, being a truly passionate and very faithful rendering of the books into film. Not only did the movie faithfully capture the emotional depth and beauty of Tolkien's creation, the movie *interprets* LOTR in a way that is thematically faithful while offering a fresh perspective on the story. To the Tolkien fans who freak out over every little change from Tolkien's original text, remember that books and film are very different story-telling media. The problem with the Harry Potter movie, IMHO, is that it offered *nothing* new to justify its existence as a film. It was simply the film-of-the-book; i.e., if you've read the book, there's little reason to see the movie. Happily, Peter Jackson had made the film of the *story* of LOTR, rather than the film-of-the-book. Yes, there were one or two points where the film interpretation didn't work for me, especially Lothlorien and Galadriel, but these quibbles are minor against the grand scope of this achievement. Bravo to Peter Jackson and company for the passion and faith to bring the "unfilmable" LOTR to the screen--FINALLY!
Rating:
Summary: Stunning...truly stunning..
Review: Having read the trilogy countless times (I share a birthday with Tolkien), I can honestly say that this film does the work justice. Of course things had to be omitted due to time/plot movement/money constraints, but this is the case when bringing any literary work to the big screen. I sat speechless through the entire three hours, unable to peel my eyes from the screen (mental note: large soft drinks are a bad idea for 3 hour movies). I would recommend this film to anyone, whether they have read the book or not. Peter Jackson has created the next "Holy Trilogy" (Star Wars is the first "Holy Trilogy"). May LOTR have as much success!
Rating: 
Summary: I refuse the hype
Review: That said this is a truly great film. As any film will it does have it's flaws. The editing and cuts were sometimes to fast to follow properly, Legolas was unfortunatly underdeveloped, and Gimli was almost non-existent. The scene in which Arwen rescues Frodo really peeved me and was the main reason I deducted a star. That scene should have been great. Imagine poor Frodo, wounded perhaps mortally, facing the ringwraiths on his own. Attempting to flee on a massive horse he crosses the ford and pulls his sword weakly challenging the hissing demonic black riders. To bad it wasn't like that. But still that said everyone MUST SEE this flick. The way this film transitions from the epic to the personal is remarkable. It truly does rival Lawrence of Arabia and Seven Samuri. There are many moments that made me quake, cry, jump, stare in awe, and basically escape into middle-earth. The acting is top-notch in all circumstances. At times the script is painfully cheesy, but on a whole it is filled with a flood of subtle and emotional moments. Just keep your eyes open and you will find them. I don't want to give anything away. The effects are supremely intergrated in such a way that many of them rival Harryhausen with the exception of some of the vistas and locations. Now I am serious. If Peter Jackson does a even more skillful job fleshing out some of the characters in the next two installments I do believe we may have one of the greatest if not the greatest achievment in motion picture history. Just you wait and see. And finally to those few who gave this movie a severe trashing, did you see the same film I did? Go see it again and really take it in. Look for the small details. They are there even if they are hidden in a fantasy landscape.
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: GENIUS!
Review: I FOUND "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" THE BEST MOVIE I HAD SEEN IN YEARS! MY FRIEND AND I WENT TO SEE "HARRY POTTER" ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE I SAW THE LORD OF THE RINGS AND I SAID THIS MOVIE(HARRY POTTER) WILL MAKE MOVIE OF THE YEAR, BUT I WAS CLEARLY MISTAKEN BECAUSE WHEN I SAW LORD OF THE RINGS I WAS BLOWN AWAY! IM NOT SAYING THAT "HARRY POTTER" ISNT GOOD, ITS BRILLIANT, ITS MORE OF A KIDS MOVIE THAN AN ADULT MOVIE. I THOUGHT THE AMOUNT OF HARD WORK PUT INTO THE LORD OF THE RINGS PAID OFF. THE ACTORS PUT ALOT OF WORK INTO PLAYING THE PART OF THERE CHARACTER'S ALSO. THE SPEICIAL EFFECTS WERE SENSATIONAL. THE MOVIE IS JUST BEYOND WORDS. I'LL END THIS REVIEW BY SAYING CONGADULATIONS TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLED IN THE MAKING OF THIS MOVIE.
|
