Rating: 
Summary: This movie is damn shoik one!
Review: The Sticky had the privilege to see the first Lord of the Rings movie
with his friend Ah Beng. Here's what he had to say about it;Wah liao! That movie was damn solid one! Though I prefer the bang bang
movies, I make an exception with this one lor. There were lots of good
things to looksee at. I like those small small people who come from
that kampong village of theirs lah. However i feel sorry for them as
they got arrow with the job of throwing that ring to that hot place lah. Those ah-mors just all eye power what! The movie was a bit long lor - got a bit sian at times lah. When they
talk in that funny language lah, got a bit chim for me what. However
the computa effects are very nice what and the action is very shoik one.
My balls drop when those big scary creatures come on what! Could only
just tahan it lah!
Rating: 
Summary: CATE BLANCHETT = GALADRIEL...end of story.
Review: The story, aside from the movie was an amazing one. It is always terribly difficult to make a movie from a book or vice versa. Someone once asked me how true the movie was to the book, and I merely answered, "This isn't the movie of the Lord of the Rings, its a movie ABOUT the Lord of the Rings." There just wasn't enough time to fit in characters like Goldberry and Tom Bombadil because they aren't exteremely intrical to the story.
I was in awe of so many of the actors. I had read the books many times before, and never could find a true interpretation of some of the characters and when I saw them on the screen, I said "oh, thats what they look like."
The scenery and sets where amazing, unlike anything I'd ever seen before. The costumes (why moulin rouge won out on costumes escapes me)
I was a bit disappointed in many people for disliking Cate Blanchett's performance. I'd read many people thinking her to be too ugly to be Galadriel. CATE BLANCHETT IS NOT UGLY. I thought that is exactly what The Lady of the Golden Wood looked like. She filled Galadriel's shoes perfectly. I think in many ways, even more than perfectly.
I do have to point out, though the entire universe knows it, Ian McKellen was the PERFECT Gandalf. Elijah Wood was also a great Frodo. Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, Sam, Pippin, and Merry were all also amazing in their roles. Saruman was awesome. Just thought I'd throw that one in.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good Start At Cinematizing a Literary Saga
Review: The Story: Frodo Baggins is a hobbit (sort of like a leprechaun, but not) who inherits everything from his cousin, Bilbo, including a ring that turns out to be The One Ring of Power, forged by the evil Lord Sauron. Sauron has been defeated, but is rising again, and needs his Ring to coalesce and consolidate his power. The Ring grants its wearer long life, invisibility, and the ability to see evil, but it also corrupts the wearer and eventually causes the wearer to become a slave to Sauron. Sauron sends forth nine Black Riders (the Nazgul), who were once human kings but have been thoroughly corrupted, to find and retrieve the Ring. Frodo and eight companions set off to destroy the Ring by casting it into Mount Doom, a volcano in the middle of Sauron's kingdom. These nine are "The Fellowship of the Ring". They journey eastward, face many perils, and not all make it. I'll say no more. Location/Sets: New Zealand was the perfect location for this film; not only are the landscapes breathtaking, but they fit the epic feel of the story. The computer-generated sets, like Rivendell, Moria, and Lothlorien, are grand and perfect. The Acting: Elijah Wood wanted this part, got it, and did it well. Ian McKellen is perfect as Gandalf. Liv Tyler is perfect as the ethereal half-Elven princess Arwen. Hugo Weaving seems too sinister as Elrond. John Rhys-Davies is perfect as Gimli, as are Orlando Bloom as Legolas, Sean Bean as Boromir, and Sean Astin as Sam. Billy Boyd and Domenic Monaghan as Pippin and Merry seemed too hyperactive and silly. Viggo Mortenson did very well as Strider/Aragorn. I'll mention Christopher Lee as Saruman below. The Action: The fight scenes are dizzyingly fast, the balrog is magnificent, and the Orcs are disgusting, nasty, ominous, and vicious (very Orcish). Watch Legolas and his bow: they stand out in most fight scenes. Fidelity to the Book: For the most part, the film remains pretty faithful to Tolkien's writing. There are several deviations though. Arwen Undomiel's role is beefed up considerably, which I see as an improvement on Tolkien (even he had his flaws). Arwen's brother doesn't exist in the film, and Arwen gets credit for the flood that washed away the Nazgul, instead of Gandalf. Another change was not good, though: Saruman's character (played well by Christopher Lee) is re-written. In the book, Saruman's treachery is long in unfolding, and he does not want to work for Sauron, but harbors the illusion of using the Ring to supplant Sauron. In the film, the treachery is dumped into the viewer's lap, and Saruman sees himself as a vassal to Sauron. The third change, the deletion of the journey through the woods and the encounter with Tom Bombadil, is a loss, but an acceptable one. Better for Newcomers or Tolkien Fans? That's a question raised by many. I've read the books four times, including reading them this Fall in anticipation of the film. Maybe that's why the condensed and somewhat rewritten script bothers me as much as it does. However, I saw the film with my father, who has not read the books, and I know that some things were Greek (or Elvish) to him, like the dislike/distrust between Elves and Dwarves, the reason for Gimli's extreme sorrow over finding Moria overtaken by Orcs, and the implications for the Elves of the destruction of the One Ring. Overall: Not a bad effort. As with Dune, I believe the story would fit better into a ten-part mini-series, or even turn it into an outright series; however, the money for location/sets would not be there, and lesser actors might end up in pivotal roles.
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: Even More Faithful to the Book
Review: The theatrical release of "Fellowship" brought Tolkien's classic to life, but the extended version presents us with a more fully realized Middle Earth. The expanded introduction allows us a longer glimpse into the simple, peaceful lives of the hobbits, and in so doing, the sense of loss--the realization that all this will end no matter what the outcome of the quest--makes the movie that much more compelling. No longer does the movie feel like a feature film but a TV miniseries. It has been transformed into a grand epic, accompanied by a stronger sense that our heroes have embarked on a quest, a journey, and not simply a stroll across the countryside. The journey now seems to take weeks and months. The characters now have the opportunity to discuss plans, fears, and dreams. Everything in the movie has been given an added dimension. This edition is a must have for every fan. The question then is whether you should buy the gift set. The set has an added DVD (a National Geographic special about the movie) as well as a few collectibles. Most of the collectibles will appeal to only the die-hard fans. The bookends are nice, and the set will look great if the remaining movies are released in matching cases. Otherwise, it will be a waste, but I imagine that having matching cases was the whole point behind it. So now you have a choice. Do you want an action movie, a fast and fun flick about good vs. evil? Get the theatrical edition. Do you want the opportunity to truly explore Middle Earth before it passes away? Get the extended edition. Most fans, though, will find room on their shelves for both.
Rating:
Summary: "A superb edition, extended is better than theatrical!"
Review: The theatrical version wasn't all that great, but when I got the extended version as a gift at a Christmas party, and managed to watch it the next day, boy was I surprised. There is more action, more humor, and the deleted scenes are plentiful. My new favorite scene was when Pippin farted from eating all that Elven bread that supposedly filled the stomach of a grown man with just one small bite. Apparently, Pippin had eaten for whole pieces. There are many extended scenes in this new version, and it coincides more with the original book. The new music, composed by Howard Shore, really only appears in the scene where Boromir cuts his finger holding the blade "that cut the Ring from Sauron's hand". In the original version, there was no music in that scene. That's about the only thing I can quote on the music. The acting is the same, but still good, and Elijah Wood does a superb job as Frodo Baggins, as does Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee, and I'm not sure who plays him, but Pippin is extremely silly and very funny, and Merry is actually one of the more serious ones. I will now review the deleted scenes. There is a scene where Gimli falls in love with Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), and because of that scene, the moment when Galadriel waves goodbye to the Fellowship is not seen, from what I remember. There is the other scene from the book where Sam and Frodo see a great band of singing Elves leaving the Shire. My favorite, of course, is when Pippin can't hold his gas in, and there is also an extended scene where Aragorn and Elrond have words. That's not it, for there is also a very nice beginning where Bilbo is writing his book: "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Tale by Bilbo Baggins", and describes the life and ways of Hobbits and the Shire. There are many more that I am probably not remembering, because this new version is 208 minutes, that's three hours and twenty-six minutes, so I absolutely could not remember it if I tried. The film is on two tapes, and I am able to tell you that part one ends when the Fellowship decides on going through the Mines of Moria and Gandalf says, "So be it". The first tape is 119 minutes long, and the second is 86 minutes, so that adds up to 208 minutes. So, I hope my review has been helpful, and don't worry, it's still rated PG-13.
Rating:
Summary: The one ring to own
Review: The theatrical-release version of Peter Jackson's _Fellowship of the Ring_ was one of the best films of 2001. But Jackson really outdoes himself with this special edition, which offers complete immersion in J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy universe. This new edition offers half an hour of extra scenes, most of which flesh out relationships between the characters. Re-edited battle scenes give hobbits a more prominent role in the fighting. Most of the additions improve the flow of the film; none actively detract from the story. What's more, the 4-DVD set offers a bewildering plethora of extras (largely dispensible, unless you're a real LOTR geek). Now, the important question: Which version is better? As an avid reader poised precariously between Tolkien geekdom and the cultural mainstream, I'd argue that this special edition is the one Ring to own. But for newcomers to Middle Earth, I think the widescreen DVD of the standard theatrical release will suffice.
Rating:
Summary: So much to say...
Review: The thing is, there's so much I want to say about this movie. I've seen it twice, and I and my brother have babbled about it for hours since. But my review probably won't be that great because I'm only a moviegoer, not a critic, and feel the immediate need to jump to the point and say that the movie was awesome. This is important: as far as fantasy goes, this is utterly perfect. The acting is perfect, the characters are developed as well as they could be in three hours ("only" three hours), the action is amazing, and the story - originally penned by some guy named Tolken - is, well, the fantasy prototype. And it's surprisingly dramatic. Frodo (Elijah Wood) is, unlike most actors in the new Star Wars films, where characters run around with plastic emotions and say ridiculously unbelievable lines like, "Just being around her is...intoxicating" (uhhh, I might like women, and intoxicating is a good way to describe the effect of some of them on me, but would I ever in my right mind say that out loud?), a very, very surprisingly complex character for a big budget hollywood film (usually most of the money in films of this sort go to production aspects, and not to overly big name actors). The reason the acting in the movie works so well is that, while none of these actors are A-list chamelion-like actors like Kevin Spacey or Tom Hanks, they seem made to fit these specific roles. Yes, there are some moments where you want to roll your eyes just a little bit (when Liv Tyler mutters her first incantation... you kind of have to think to yourself, "okay, this is absolutely necessary"), but by the end, it all seems to fit into the movie. As I said, the movie is perfect, for the type of film it is. However, fantasy movies might just not be your cup of tea, which is fine, and in which case, the worst you'll think of this movie is that it's "good". But the Lord of the Rings - with it's perfectly integrated special effects, actual drama depth, and enough battle scenes to keep any teenager smiling with satisfaction for all three hours (well, maybe the last two and a half) - was designed to reach a wider audience than those who just like fantasy novels, so, unless stories that stray into the fantastical make you vomit, there's no reason for you not to give LOTR a shot. . I know I haven't spoken of the actual plot of the movie, because I always find that it's best to go into a movie knowing as little about it as possible. I'm sure that's going to be hard, given the omnipresence of advertizing, but, trust me, you don't want me to give any of it away. What you should know you've seen in the previews, and if you haven't seem previews, that's all the better. I was ridiculously (upset) when it ended though. In retrospect, and on second viewing, it made perfect sense to end when it did. I'm just irked that I have to wait another twelve months to find out what happens next. Or do I? I think it's time I read those books.
Rating:
Summary: Lord Of The Rings--Superb
Review: The three parts of the Lord of the Rings---Fellowship, The Two Towers and Return of the King are all superb. Photographed very well and the acting is very good. This is a fantasy story, but has many parallels to real life (Good versus Evil). Not recommended for children under the age of 12. Some scenes could frighten some children. These films are excellent even for the person who has not read the Tolkien books. It is good entertainment value for the casual film viewer. These film rank up there along with "The Godfather and Band of Brothers" Good entertainment with immense and intense scenes of battles. Very good film-making and attention to detail.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing movie !! DO NOT listen to the negative comments !!
Review: The time span within the movie make it seem like the scenes take place only a day apart. When in the book Gandalf leaves Bilbo's House and returns in 9 years to tell Frodo he has to leave and destroy the Ring. Just minor details like that are skipped and changed which i feel is better or else the general audience will be lost. This movie did it's job in making the Lord of the Rings "come to life". I don't think any director could make it any better within this century. Maybe in the cosmic future will a more accurate remake be made ? The Nazguls (ringwraiths) were depicted as mysterious, powerful, evil beings, which i thought was very cool ! although i felt that they should have made the Nazguls tougher at the Weathertop scene fighting Aragorn. Aragorn whipped all 5 of them up !! The only problem with this DVD is that the Widescreen borders are large !! the top and bottom borders are large making my 20 inch tv in my dorm looking like a 13 inch tv. if i were to do it again i would have bought a Full Screen version.
|
