Rating: 
Summary: Movie of the Year!!!! A Must See for All!!!!
Review: I must admit. I have never heard of the Lord of the Rings before the previews started airing on television. I went to go see this movie with my girlfriend Naomi, and we were both blown away. This movie is fantastic. It has been a long time since I really enjoyed a movie such as this one. I can honestly say we were glued to the seats for three hours. The storyline is excellent!!The graphics are marvelous and the actors did a magnificent job. This movie definately gets my pick for movie of the year!!
Rating:
Summary: An awesome and terrible experience
Review: As a teacher, I know that one of my responsibilities is to ensure that children's sense of "Awe and Wonder" is allowed to flourish. The modern child seems so cynical and sophisticated that he can be very difficult to impress. When I was eight years old, a student teacher had tried to read The Hobbit to my class. I hated it. But seeing the BBC's 1968 radio adaptation of the story in Waterstone's when looking for something to listen to on my journey to work, (one which lasts an hour and a half, There and Back Again) I felt sure that I could overcome my prejudice. I did. I loved it. I was hooked. I wanted more. I bought the BBC's radio Lord of the Rings (1980) and was now a confirmed Tolkienite. Fascinated by the mythology, I visited the "official" Tolkien website and discovered that a film was being made. However, having seen Peter Jackson's hand held close-up-to-the-nostril style in "Braindead" and "The Frighteners", I was somewhat fearful of what he might do to the Frodo, Gollum and Aragorn imagined in my head. When I downloaded the first trailer, my fears were allayed more than somewhat. The hairs prickled on the back of my neck. Alas, I knew that I was going to have to wait another eighteen months to see a film about a book that I hadn't read; that if I read it I might be turned by the Power of The One Book into a Tolkien geek (too late already) and then be disappointed by the changes I knew Jackson would have to make.I gave in of course, completing the trilogy last summer and rereading the Fellowship of the Ring this summer. Despite my enjoyment, Tolkien's writing leaves much to be desired and I became hopeful that a director who captured the spirit of the book rather than every dry detail would be doing us all a service. When last night, the hour finally arrived, I was not disappointed. No, it was not like the BBC's version which I have now listened to countless times. No, the book has not been translated directly to the screen without any changes. Jackson has taken a number of liberties with the book, but has in the process, produced a film that in many ways is superior in vision to that achieved by Tolkien himself. There is a theory that artists are not originators of their work, merely imperfect vessels for the expressions of universal truths. Whatever Tolkien may have intended by his book, there is a story, not necessarily his, to be imagined and reimagined by the readers, some of whom will baulk at seeing their version significantly altered. Perhaps the most obvious element missing in this film is the story and song, the literature and lore of Middle-Earth. But what is not only preserved, but magnified and rightly so, is the sense of a universe where the powers of good and evil, of nature and the landscape, are vastly greater than man can understand. Jackson's triumph is to have sewn this thread of truth into every frame, and, according to my wife, by no means a fan, "made it all look so real". The essence of the book for me is epitomised by Gollum, a pathetic character so twisted by the lust for power that he has no control over his own destiny. We have yet to see his role fully revealed, but it is clear that Frodo, Aragorn and even Sam too are controlled by their fates. What Jackson has achieved is a realisation of the scale of the hidden forces which direct man in love, in battle, throughout life. It is the sweep and power of the opening battle which sets the tone for the whole movie, not just the narrative detail. The detail is almost irrelevant. It matters not that we do not see properly the individual thrust and parry of a fight, because this film is not about the mechanics of war. It is about the forces which drive man to wage war and which are beyond his understanding - the same force which drives man to fall in love, to lust for power, to procreate. It is a marvellous achievement. This film scores over almost every other that tries to grapple with the same themes. Star Wars, often quoted by those of short memory as the top movie of all time, does not come close in projecting the real, hidden powers of the universe. For all its talk of "The Force", it fails to convey half the passion and fear to be found in Fellowship. Star Wars is of course a different film - clever, knowing, a technical marvel, paying due allegiance to many other films and books, most notably Lord of the Rings. But Fellowship is not about special effects, or baddies and goodies in the simplistic sense, or buddy-buddies, or soap-opera moments ("I am your father Luke!"). If it lacks intimacy it is because it tries to get beyond the individuals that make up the story and instead visualise the unknowable meanings of life. A risky strategy, but one which works. Jackson delivers a hugely spiritual film; not the kind of spiritual experience that dopeheads declared Kubrick's 2001 to be, but with the same sense of awe which I must arouse in my schoolchildren; the same sense of the "terrible" (reach for your dictionaries folks) which filmmakers generally shy away from. "Awe and wonder" is a rather embarrassing and much underrated theme for filmakers in a post-modern world, which heaps endless praise on self-referential Tarantino movies. The grand and meaningful can seem so absurd that such films can only be made full of wise-cracks to make them accessible to the closed-minded. This epic is therefore only for the open-minded, the innocent, even the naïve, who are willing to allow "awe and wonder" to take over their lives for three hours. Like a six-year-old child, I can't wait for next Christmas.
Rating:
Summary: The best that could be done.
Review: Peter Jackson has found the right mix of being true to the book and being watchable for those who haven't yet read the book. Yes, he could have made it line-for-line from the text (I would have loved it). But the "average" viewer would be bored to sleep. A book and a movie are two different media and cannot be compared directly. I loved every second of it. I have read the book four times and am currently reading it again. Say what you will, but to me it is worth it simply to see some (most) of the scenes I know so well in my mind come to "life" on the big screen.
Rating:
Summary: READ THIS!
Review: This was the BEST movie of the year. The actors were WONDERFUL and Viggo Motenson was CUTE...lol. It had GREAT special effects and grafices . I recomened it for EVERYONE out there to see this movie. It has comedy(little bit)..emotion times...and sometimes it will make you jump because you didn't expect it. I loved this movie and CAN'T wait for the other!!
Rating:
Summary: The quickest 3 hours I've ever spent.
Review: This was an excellent movie. The casting of Ian McKellen as Gandalf was ingenious! He has the voice to carry the role. Elijah Wood put forth a remarkable (and surprisingly good) performance as Frodo Baggins. Not to knock Mr. Wood, however, I first had my doubts when I learned he was playing the role. They put the emphasis on the areas that needed to make the book-to-screen transition. The effects were were done perfectly to make Hobbits seem smaller than everyone else...
Rating:
Summary: You Need To See this one NOW
Review: Simply amazing. not one bad thing about it. I want it on DVD now so I can have the goodness at my home! It's your duty to go see this one!
Rating:
Summary: Peter Jackson does it again
Review: I always look forward to a Peter Jackson movie, ever since I discovered Bad Taste back in high school. A movie that didn't even have a female actress, but had me rolling on the floor laughing. Since then, i've rushed to every one of his films: Meet the Feebles, Dead Alive, the Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures... I can't usually say the same for Lord of the Ring movies. I tried so hard to like those animated ones, but the Lord of the Rings one especially, with a choppy story and the ever-changing animation styles, only made me disappointed. So, hearing that Peter Jackson was directing LoTR, I gave a woop of joy. One of my fav directors doing one of my fav book series! And I was not disappointed. In fact, I wonder if he's been taking lessons from Terry Gillian. The movies is pretty to watch, and despite the effects needed in a picture of this sort, they do not overpower or attempt to compensate for anything else. In fact, they looked natural. The acting is good, the dialog was well done, the directing, the cinematography, the score... the movie has a good stable balance of everything. the only complaint is that it moves fast at some points, but that was only a *small* editing point. So there you go. My recommendation is: SEE IT!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: A Definate Fellowship
Review: I have read 'The Fellowship Of the Rings' back the front, and the movie met all expectations. Firstly, excellent acting on Elijah Wood's behalf, and Orlando Bloom (who played Legolas) was excellent. Parts of the novel, most certainly, were cut from the book, but that didn't affect the movie at all. Peter Jackson's directing is marvellous. This epic of Tolkien's classic is a not to be missed cinema experience.- Julian Bodenmann
Rating:
Summary: Awsome, Breath-taking, but Violent
Review: Through the whole movie, my heart was pounding. Unlike the Harry Potter movie, it had action the whole time. In the Harry Potter movie, one of the biggest scenes is the troll scene in the girls bathroom, but in "The Lord of the Rings" there are hundreds of troll-like creatures called "Orks". I am 11 and have only read half of "The Hobbit", and I want to now read the whole Triligy, I recomend it, even though it is violent!! Thank You
Rating: 
Summary: WEAK SAUCE...
Review: The hype currently surrounding these films is laughable to me now, even though a few weeks ago I was excited to see this first installment. Peter Jackson and crew have succeeded in destroying my memory of Tolkien's finely crafted, SUBTLE work. Subtle this film is not. More like mind-numbing, poorly conceived, inappropriately violent. Just another action movie, albeit a three-hour action movie. There is NO characterization, NO good dialogue, NO charm, NO enchantment, NO humor, NOTHING to enjoy. There is only a ring that needs to get from Point A to Point B. Blah blah blah... Big, loud, stupid, ugly. Poor special effects. Gratuitous battle scenes. Poor pacing. No emotion. I am so disappointed in this film. I really believe any one out there who is excited about this film is either a teen who has never read the books (but seen The Matrix a hundred times), an adult with a real soft spot for DIE HARD, or a geek who is in denial - who realizes there was a lot wrong with the film, but didn't quite find it "bad enough" to criticize so therefore falls head over heels in his/her praise for "the magnificient hobbit effects!!!" Hey guy...they're just filming actors at different angles, using a lot of close-ups, and substituting kids for adults in behind-the-back shots. This ain't ILM, folks... Twenty years from now, my kids will not be watching this film over and over. No one will. This isn't the new Star Wars, it's the new TITANIC, the new PEARL HARBOR - a film that is initially greeted with praise but soon forgotten as an overhyped mess. And the next 2 are already in the can, so drink up!!! I look forward to two more years of listening to geeks decieve themselves so they can jock Elijah Wood and Peter Jackson. Two stars for the cast....all good sports, especially Wood and Ian McKellen. Jackson led them like lambs to the slaughter, but at least they gave it their all on the way down.
|
