Rating: 
Summary: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Review: Most Tolkien fans are very possessive of The Lord of the Rings. It's personal. The story belongs to each of us in its own unique way and it holds a special meaning that few others can appreciate. Peter Jackson has accomplished what many thought impossible. He successfully created a movie that does Tolkien's masterpiece justice. Period.If we simply look at this achievement as a movie, it dazzles with creative and spectacular effects, crisp editing, superb directing, and outstanding acting (especially Elijah Wood amd Ian McKellen). Taken in context to what this story means to Tolkien fans, it is difficult to put into words how well this movie succeeds. Tolkien fans everywhere are simply saying 'thank you' to Peter Jackson. If you're a true fan, you know what I mean. Now..I am a purist, but not an absolutist. Did the movie follow the book to the letter? No. However, Jackson adhered to the spirit of the story and if he took any liberties, they were effective. In fact, the scenes with Saurman reveal just how well Jackson understood Tolkien's work and are some of the most spectacular scenes in the movie. The book may not have explored the plot lines this way, but I am thankful that Jackson did. Again...Mr. Jackson...thank you!
Rating: 
Summary: A very good beginning
Review: Well..its exactly 20 min since I left the theater. I must say, it was a good effort. Great action sequences..true moments of suspence, likeable characters, it was very good..though not great however. When the main characters werent running for their lives...the story dragged a bit..some of the dialogue was a bit on the...shall we say, cheesy side. But, its the action sequences that keep this film afloat. As for individual performances Ian Mckellar does a good job of bringing some vulnerability to Gandolph...and the man playing Bilbo adds a touch of creepiness to him that sure wasnt there in the cartoon.I also thought that Viggo Mortensen was very good as well as Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler. Sadly, its hard to be a standout when playing the hero of a story, though Elijah at least has screen presence. The pitfalls of the film however I feel are how to keep the audience engaged in the characters when they are not in peril. I have the feeling that, had I been a huge fan of the books and read them before hand...I would have enjoyed this film a bit more. But seeing as I havent , I must say I liked the characters..but did not love them. So, that when a crucial cast memeber dies well....I didnt take it quite so hard. But, it is a huge task to ask to build repor when dealing with a huge novel and a long story ..to ask for more would prob require an extra hour of viewing time.and that is a touch unreasonable seeing as the film already clocks in on three hours. AS for technical merits.I was not impressed with the cinematography that much..and the Cgi rendering wasnt that great.The stereo sound was decent..but I will say that the surrouind sound in the film was just incredible. but otherwise, technically, Id have to say George Lucas would win that battle. But mr jackson admitted he purposely didnt go overboard with the special effects so as not to overshadow the story...a tip that mr lucas could benefit from(judging by the star wars ep 2 trailer). All in all..for a movie as highly anticipated as this one was...its not by any means a total letdown. Granted..i was not totally blown away as I'd hoped I'd be..but I cant sya that I didnt enjoy the film..and I have a sneaking suspicion when its available on dvd that ill be in line to get it too. So, good but not great, but worth the price of admission. However...heh, I still say mr jackson's best directorial effort is Meet the Feebles *wink*...no hobbit can top Garden of Love- A.N.
Rating: 
Summary: Huge Disappointment
Review: A huge cinematic disappointment. The movie is entirely too long -- and the first 1.5 hours almost put me to sleep. There were way too many cheezy sentimatal moments that didn't advance the plot enough to warrant their inclusion. I can't believe that this film is getting so much hype (and some Golden Globe nominations), and moreover, that they have already filmed the next two. Whoever agreed to the $300 Million pricetag for all three movies should be fired.
Rating:
Summary: (...)
Review: That was the best movie i have ever seen in my life. It is gonna kill me to have to wait another year to see the next part and then still longer to see the conclusion but i definitly have to say i don't care who you are or what your in to YOU HAVE TO GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! this is by far the best movie of all time star wars is (...) in comparison. Now i havn't read to books so before i saw this i had no idea about it so after seeing it i know i am gonna have to read the other two books b/c i know i can't wait a year to find out what happens.
Rating:
Summary: A classic in the making!
Review: I figured this movie would be fun, well-done, and a great companion to the book. I hoped it would be able to stand alone; I hoped it wouldn't require the book to be enjoyable; I hoped above all that PJ would stay true to the feel of the books, and not succomb Hollywood (shades of Harry Potter). It blew me away. It was EASILY the best fantasy/sci fi movie I have ever seen. It was probably the best movie (that's such a hard thing for me to decide, though...whenever I say "My all-time favourite movie is..." I end up with three or four!). Let me just say first: Ian McKellen is God. (Viggo and Orlando are minor deities--despite being a long-time member of the Aragorn Fan Club, I have to say that Legolas is giving him a run for his money!) The reviewer who said, "Ian McKellen doesn't appear in this movie. Gandalf does" got it dead on. If he doesn't get an Oscar, I'll never watch the Oscars again. To me, there were two things that made this a great movie as opposed to a good one. First, I don't remember the last time I was so into a movie that I shrieked in fright. But I did at one particulary frightening point in this movie (and I wasn't the only one!). Second, and more important, there were SEVERAL times (and for extended periods) when I was completely, totally immersed in the MOVIE. I was not watching the book translated onto the screen; I was watching the MOVIE. I don't think I can give Peter Jackson and company much higher praise than that. Now, I don't think the movie was perfect. It took me a few minutes to get used to the hobbit-size thing, right at the beginning. I don't think it was badly done, though: I think it was just hard to get used to seeing miniature people! I wanted to smack Liv Tyler. She's a decent enough actress, but I thought she really paled in comparison with the other acting. Also, I have to admit, I said a year and a half ago that I was afraid I would see her riding in the movie, and only be able to think, "She's riding a barrel," and I was right. Now, I'm sure I've seen plenty of other movies where the character wasn't really riding, and liked 'em, but I just couldn't do it here. Most of the CGI was great, but there were a few exceptions. The thing about CGI is that it is SO EASY to point out when it's bad...but most good CGI you never notice because you don't KNOW it's CGI! How much of the lighting in that movie was CGI? How many of the mountains? How many miniscule details? We'll never know--and THAT'S the good part. Now, obviously, I knew that Moria was computer generated. But it certainly looked like they had carved it out of a cave in New Zealand somewhere. (The fire in Moria was the BEST CGI fire I've ever seen--in fact, I think that maybe they DID set a cave on fire! :D) I think I'm going to go to NZ and look for the Pillars of the Argonath, as I'm fairly sure that they really did carve those out of a mountain beside a river somewhere. Everything else...was AWESOME. I was dreading some of the compaction, but I thought it turned out fine. Peter Jackson captured one last thing in this movie that is too often lacking in today's movies: FEELING. I was happy, I was sad, I was angry, I was scared. The score was a bonus here. Shore captured the feelings of the moments PERFECTLY (he'd better get an Oscar, too). The music was old and new at the same time--amazing, and just what was needed. He didn't SHOVE emotion at the viewers/listeners, he merely echoed and enhanced it. The Black Riders...whoa. Talk about the stuff nightmares are made of. Their screams were GREAT. Their screams were AWFUL. I wanted to run out of the theatre and hide and never hear that again. They terrified me, even though I knew what was going to happen. Saruman's orcs running through the woods...I considered crawling under my chair (movies do not usually do that to me!--at least not for prolonged periods of time). I desperately wanted things to go completely differently than the book, just so the orcs would go away! THAT is what makes this a great movie. It's NOT the book, but it has the SPIRIT of the book and it ENGAGED me--even though I can recite the book from memory. It truly did exceed my expectations. Am I saying that the movie is better than the book? Of COURSE not. To me, though, it is absolutely, 100% AS GOOD AS the book. It is different, to be sure, but that does not make it a bad movie. It's written for fans and newcomers, and both can enjoy it and relish their 3 hour trip to Middle Earth. Bottom line: It's not perfect (what is?), but I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Should satisfy even hardcore LOTR fans
Review: Okay, I admit it! I'm a Lord of the Rings geek! There! I've said it. Whew. I've read the original LOTR books so many times that I've gone through three printings (starting with a 1960's and going to the most recent printings with artistry by Alan Lee). I feel somewhat qualified (that's a large word here: 'qualified') to review and rate this movie. So here we go: The story is that of Frodo Baggins and his quest to get rid of the one ruling Ring of power that was forged by Sauron, the Dark Lord. The Fellowship of the Ring is formed once a small band of Hobbits reach Rivendell (run by a half elf lord named Elrond). Here Frodo, Samwise, Merry and Pippin (the Hobbits) are joined by Gandalf (a wizard), Gimli (a dwarf), Legolas (an Elf), Aragorn (a Ranger formerly known as Strider), and Boromir (a man). They set out to help Frodo on his quest to throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom and along the way are thrown into every fiery mess one could imagine (or maybe not). At the end, the Fellowhip is in a shambles but that's no surprise considering the power of this Ring: it turns all around it to greed and dishonor. The movie itself. I'm sure that there will be much talk about what is lacking in the movie that was in the book. But one cannot expect every facet of a book to enter into a screenplay. The movie would have been 13 hours long then! So let's take a brief glimpse at what was lacking and why: #1: In the book it is Bilbo's AND Frodo's birthday party (they have the same B-Day), but in the movie it it just Bilbo's. This is not surprising since later, there is no mention of Frodo coming into his 'inheritance' because he was coming of age (33 to Bilbo's Eleventy-One). No big deal there. #2: Some characters are completely omitted for times sake and this was not a problem since they didn't play pivotal roles later. Notably there is no Labelia who buys Bag-End, no showing of old man Maggot and his mushroom farm, no Glorfindel meeting up with the travelers on the road to Rivendell. There are more but I will dive no further into it. These omissions were acceptable and expected in my mind. #3: The development of Old Bill, the Horse that faithfully lugs their wares (up til he is presumed dead at the entrance to the Mines of Moria) is never brought forward. Oh well. #4: Galadriel gives only one gift (to Frodo) when the Fellowship leaves Lothlorien. No surprise there since the light of Galadriel will be used later in future movies. But the gifts given to the other members of the Fellowship is never addressed. Not surprising since they don't play a role later. Now. What was good? Well....almost everything. There is something in the movie for everyone. There are small tidbits that Mr. Jackson (the director) left in for LOTR diehard fans that I absolutely loved. Notably, during Bilbo's birthday party you'll see Bilbo telling a story to children-hobbits about his adventures during the original, 'The Hobbit,' when he meets up with Trolls and they're turned to stone by the sun. Then, later in the movie, if you watch closely, you'll see the Fellowship hiking by large boulders....what was that out of the corner of my eye? That looked somewhat like a statue of a...a...troll?
Also, when Galadriel holds all of the Fellowship with her gaze there is no hint as to what exactly is going on there, but those who are the diehard fans will know, won't we. I might have a bit of LOTR blasphemy here, but I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Jackson's development of the friendship of Frodo and Samwise (even better than Tolkien himself did! Blasphemy!). The film is completely satisfying in my humble opinion. The shrinking down of the Hobbits and Gimli is masterfully done. The sets are dark and mysterious, just as I'd pictured them (for this is a dark story). The first ten minutes of the movie is crucial to those who've never read the LOTR books, since it gives a detailed history of Middle Earth. And the movie leaves us wanting more. The worst part, for me, will be waiting another year for the next installment in the excellent series. I can hardly wait!
Rating:
Summary: Pleasantly Suprised
Review: After seeing Harry Potter (which I found do be a dreadfully long mishmash of thrown togther scenes) I was skeptical about what was being done with LoR. I saw the movie last night, and my skepticism was put to rest. It needs to be said first that even the greatest of movies can not match up to the experiences of the greatest books. So this movie needs to be evaluated at the level of movies and not the level of the book from which was based. As a movie it succeeds while maintaining a faithful adherence to Tolkien's original story. The movie is amazing visually, from a moth in one shot to the Balrog to the forests and mountains. I was hoping for more from the musical score. I didn't find it particularly memorable or even totally appropriate. Sometimes the tone of the music clashed subtley with the mood of the scene, but overall it was an adequate though not amazing job. There are a few instances of distracting editing and stilted if not unnecessary lines of dialogue--and I wish Gimly would have gotten to use his axe more--but overall this is an excellent picture. ...
Rating:
Summary: Lord Of The Rings: Harry Potter is in BIG TROUBLE
Review: Is there anything else about this movie that hasn't been said already? Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring is to our generation as what Star Wars was about twenty years ago. The cinematography and scenery just simply outdoes anything from that OTHER fantasy movie (yes, you know which one it is! HINT: Look at the subject title) and the acting is superb. What is even more spectacular is that they filmed all three parts of the trilogy within 15 months. That is a huge and risky undertaking!
This movie may not be true to the J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy, but it does come close. I won't reveal any spoilers about this movie or any information that they left out, but I do recommend to you that you go see this movie and read the books!
And when is Lord Of The Rings coming out on DVD? If the movie looked good on the silver screen, I can't wait to see what it will look like on my laptop computer! I will be first in line to purchase the DVD! :-)
Rating: 
Summary: Great Cast, Great Look
Review: As a Tolkein geek since about age six, I was, overall, impressed by Peter Jackson's take on Lord of the Rings. Most of what he did I liked a great deal. There was only one thing I REALLY DIDN'T like: his interpretation of Galadriel and the scene at her mirror, which Jackson turned into some _Craft_-like evil witch nonsense. I always imagined Galadriel's reflections on what would happen if she took the one ring to be much quieter in tone, with almost a wry self-knowledge. I had expected this would be conveyed with acting rather than FX, and I found that the way it was done diminished the power of the scene. If the movie had a general fault it was that certain things were just overblown. It was almost as if Jackson felt he had to point out significant events, rather than let them point themselves out. Some of the lingering, slow motion went on too long. Both times Frodo was wounded, Boromir's death and Sam's near drowning stick out for me as places where I thought the pace lagged and the story verged on the melodramatic. There were also a few places where Jackson inserted action that I definitely hadn't imagined, which gave the whole a kind of video game feel. I thought at first that this represented the difference between a woman's take on Tolkein;'s work and a "guy's" -- probably 75% of the theatre audience was male -- but my husband agreed with me, so I don't know. Just a dfference in vision, I guess. Some of the cuts and substitutions, though necessary, bothered me. I missed the journey through the Shire. I REALLY missed Tom Bombadil, and I'm unsure about the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel. The action between Bilbo's party and the arrival at Rivendell seemed rushed. I think the fact that there were 15 years or so between Frodo's inheritance of the ring and his leaving the Shire was an important one, and Jackson just ignored it. I also think that the "conspiracy" between Merry, Pippin and Sam was a major contribution both to the story and to the three younger Hobbits' characters, and I was sorry that it wasn't included. As Jackson portrayed it, Merry and Pippin ended up going along to Bree and farther completely by accident and that didn't work so well for me. On the plus side: this movie looked FANTASTIC! Some of the scenes were obviously built from Tolkein's own drawings. The Shire, the mines of Moria, the Pillars of the Kings all were unbelievably real. I can't say enough about how incredible the look was; it just blew me away, which doesn't happen often. The cast was also incredible. The only one who didn't really meet my expectations was, surprsingly, Christopher Lee; I expected Saruman to be more suave and oily. The rest were phenomenal, though, particularly Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) and Ian McKellen (Gandalf). I also thought Elijah Wood did a fine job showing Frodo's transformation from a rather happy-go-lucky hobbit to one forced by circumstance to carry an incredible burden. I was consistently amazed when I realised that none of these actors was a little person, but that all the size differences were done with CG. The CG environments were also amazing; if this movie doesn't win at least one award I'll be shocked. _Fellowship of the Ring_ kept me on the edge of my seat for its entire three hours. (I would actually give it four and a half stars if I could.) I think it will stand the scrutiny of most exacting Tolkein afficianados. Go see it.
Rating:
Summary: For Tolkien fans only?
Review: Many of the comments that will be posted here will be from lifelong devotees of the 'Lord of the Rings' books, attesting to whether the film succeeds in recreating characters, places and events they have read a hundred times over. But what about the rest of us, those who have somehow managed to survive adolescence without the help of Tolkien's epic goblindegook? Is there anything for us to enjoy? Well, it often looks beautiful, more so when it concentrates on New Zealand's unexpectedly wondrous and vast landscapes, less so when it relies on CGI effects which, though superior to those in 'Harry Potter', still look like effects. There are some quite breathtakingly artful compositions, often resembling Pre-Raphaelite paintings of Arthurian subject matter, such as the hazy, dawnpink scene when Frodo and chums boat away from Cate Blanchett. There is a willingness (if not ability) to be humorous that is refreshing. Peter Jackson, to his eternal credit, avoids one of two cardinal sins of the 'historical' epic: pace. Almost without exception, the epic is always ground down to an enervatingly slow pace, as much to show off the results of a big budget (sets, masses of men etc.) as to create an appropriately solemn atmosphere. Here enormous battles and endless sets flash be in tantalising seconds; Jackson exhaustively uses as many different, arresting camera angles and movements and editing techniques to vary the cinematography and keep the film moving as briskly as possible. Sadly, he is defeated by the second cardinal sin of the 'historical' epic: script. There's nothing he can do with the risible, cod-medieval dialogue and monologues that destroy all credibility ('And I with mine axe!' 'But we shall meet Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the glade of Ebeneezer, mine loyal vassal' etc.). He can't hide the fact that every plot development - quest, picaresque gathering of friends, wise Obi-Goondolph-Kenobi guide, hero nearly dying, idyllic period of recuperation etc. - has been done to death a thousand times over the millenia, most notably in 'Star Wars'. He can't cover over the confusing and too-speedy opening exposition and explanation of the quest's context, which made the plot (for me) often mystifying, and can alienate anyone who hasn't read the book. He can't quite avoid the pitfall of unintentional humour: when one character is stabbed with three arrows he continues to fight the hordes bravely, I was irresistably reminded of 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and the scene where Arthur lops off every limb of a knight who gamely refuses to give in. On the other hand, the Darth Maul/Golem figure who becomes the ultimate tool of the enemy, suggests Maori culture, which in the context of the New Zealand locations is interesting; and, combined with the sly visual sublimation of taboo dsire in this homosocial fellowship (all these towering constructions and statues; all those ravines, pits and passages), suggests that Jackson has lost none of his sardonic subversiveness. In summary: 'Fellowship' is an Arthurian/Narnian/Robin Hoodian/Wagnerian hodgepodge with Ray Harryhausen-type monsters. These latter, including a 'Shrek'-lookalike ogre, are more nostalgically endearing than frightening.
| 
