Rating: 
Summary: Its pace is similar to the book, and true to its spirit
Review: Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring is matched very closely by this movie. The history is given, and provides strong background, drawn from the sources in the books, including The Silmarillion and the Hobbit. The intensity of the chase, the draw of the ring are duplicated very closely, though not identically to those in Tolkein's work. The movie proceeds more or less sequentially, which was not necessarily true of the books. The acting was very good, and one can feel the emotions of the players. I must admit that the elves did not seem as otherworldly beautiful as the book describes, though I find that each person's definition of beauty is different. Also the character of Sam Gamgee is a bit more serious and the characters of Merry and Pippin are more humorous and have less depth, but that too can be expected due to time constraints in the movie. I was somewhat disappointed in the escape scene across the ford, to Rivendale because of the lack of effective resistance in Frodo, but this is a personal perspective and does not detract from the story. I also wish some indication of time, the 17 years between the departure of Bilbo and the the departure of Frodo had been more evident. The scenes in which Frodo wears the ring or seems in the world of the ring wraiths were very interesting though and added a certain depth that I quite enjoyed. Boromir's character showed the range of the character of Man, from treachery to nobility, and was well played. I look forward to the Two Towers, and further development of the characters of Legalos, Gimli, Merry, Pippin, Sam and Aragorn. The movie did drag in some places, but so does the book. Overall the movie was very good, and I would recommend it to all, though it may be a bit intense for younger viewers.
Rating:
Summary: through a glass darkly
Review: Transferring a book to the screen is always a dangerous proposition. Simply put, too much can go wrong, the two mediums are simply too different for most adaptations to hold up with any integrity. Transferring what many consider the best book of the twentieth century to screen, well logically that should simply be an act of folly. Tolkien wrote a deeply drawn story with passion and vision and these are things that transfer poorly to the silver screen. As Roger Ebert noted "The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, going places, being places, and going on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations". The books are also about the use and abuse of power, the ability of one soul to make a difference and the growth a person will and must undergo once they leave their home. All in all, too much for a film of any commercial value or length to reasonably tackle, so obviously something had to go. Largely what was changed was mood and tone. While the books felt airy and gently paced as it moved its hobbit heroes through the bumps and hollows of Middle earth, introducing them to a wide breadth of that world's inhabitants, the film takes the central motivation, the threat of the one-ring and ties its fate to that frame alone. As a result the core of the tale does shift from Frodo, to the fellowship as a whole, and the tone does move drastically and becomes much darker. Contrary to much spilled ink however, this is not inconsistent with the book. Middle earth has never been portrayed as a world in its prime. The Elves are leaving/dying out, the Dwarves are merely a shadow of their former selves, Mankind is without leadership and the isolationist Hobbits have cut themselves off, possibly fatally, from the happenings of the world around them. Into this stagnancy returns the corrupting power and strength of the one-ring, this is dark stuff, Tom Bombadil and musical trappings cannot hide this. What remains is a darker, leaner narrative, but one that retains many of the key elements that make this story so worth telling in any form. Never has the corrupting nature of power and the temptation it poses to all who possess it been so passionately and elegantly told. Frodo's internal struggles, Gandalf's fight for knowledge and understanding, the conflict of the elves to leave and save the civilization that they have grown beyond but also formed, the tragedy and sorrow of the loss of a dwarf's entire culture, and need to use the enemy's strongest weapon against him and knowing that such a thing must not be done; these are all wonderfully rich stories and themes that any single movie would take pride in dealing singly with. Fellowship tackles all of these vital threads and to varying degrees of success weaves them into a magical quilt that most intelligent observers said was impossible and could never be done. There IS magic in this movie, and it comes from its smallest moments; a gleam in Gandalf's eyes, a held-back tear in Frodo's eyes, the moment of understanding in Boromir's stance, the addiction of Bilbo, and the envy of Galadriel as she confronts Frodo. This is all the stuff of legend and of magic, and as magic-makers nobody on this production has ever been better than they are here, Peter Jackson, Howard Shore, Andrew Lesnie, Ian McKellen all are hitting on all cylinders. This is as close as film can get to fulfilling its potential as a medium while celebrating the achievements of another wholly different one.
Rating: 
Summary: Having trouble sleeping?
Review: Trouble sleeping at night? Well let this movie bore you to sleep, if not to death. The fight for Middle Earth... blah,blah,blah. Ok, ok end the movie already, GEESH!
Rating:
Summary: It's all that you want it to be, and more
Review: True moviegoers have come to know a familiar desire in these days of gross commercialization and cross-promotion: that an anticipated new film will live up to its hype. Well, "The Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't just live up to its hype. It stomps all over it. Hype becomes a devalued word, useless when confronted by a movie this good. It is hype proof. While it's shattering the need for one word, it is reincarnating another: Epic. It is a word that has come to represent such ignoble qualities as garishness, largess, of being over done and over long. But "The Fellowship of the Ring" restores the original sense of the word; it is historic, legendary, heroic, and grand. Director Peter Jackson, an intimate artist who just happens to be painting on a large scale here, retains most (if not all) of Tolkien's story, while shedding a lot of superfluous background information. He finds the middle ground between not pandering to those familiar with the book, and providing enough background for those not familiar with the book. The information presented is necessary, and relevant to the story being told, but also alludes to the wealth of knowledge laying underneath, tempting those who see the movie to go out and delve into the book for more. Which is really what a good film adaptation should do. And Jackson, known for his keen cinematic eye, does not disappoint. In fact, he exceeds all expectations, bringing to the screen a visual aesthetic that is both original and personal. He constructs several visceral and kinetic, if a bit confusing, battle scenes. The confusion works, however, in that it brings a real sense of danger to the scenes. The scenery he (or rather, Grant Major) created was breathtaking when it needed to be, and foreboding when necessary, but always real, textured, and inspiring: The Shire was quaint and wondrous; Rivendell was majestic and picturesque; Mordor was vile and perilous. Jackson, for all his skills with visual aesthetics, never lets it trample on his characters. Most were fully drawn, with real emotion and motivations. Legolas didn't say much, but when he did it spoke volumes. Boromir, a conflicted man whose purpose to the plot is paramount, was handled well, with the respect and care the character deserves. Gandalf the Grey, who has become the archetypal *omnipotent* wizard, could have been portrayed as just that. But that would not have been true to the character. Like in the book, Gandalf is not all-powerful, especially when confronted by, in one memorable scene, the formerly good now evil wizard Saruman. Gandalf is a flawed man, but wise enough to know how to overcome his weaknesses for the good of the fellowship. And Frodo Baggins, the little Hobbit entrusted with the Ring, begins life as a wide-eyed innocent. But we watch him grow and learn of the magnitude of his task, sensing along with him the fear and obligation he comes to know. But the one character who made the most seamless jump from book to film was Strider. He was my favourite character in the book, and my assessment of him hasn't changed in his celluloid form. In fact, the film Strider may have even more depth, as his key background information, which in the books doesn't come till much later, is revealed early on. It doesn't take away from the flow of the story as far as I'm concerned, because Jackson handles the release of this information with a skillful touch. I was worried that rumours of broadened female roles, in a cheap attempt to widen the film's appeal, would be true. Rest easy, friends. They're not. Arwen and Galadriel, even though they're played by big name actresses, appear enough in the movie so that they register, but not so much that they'll anger hardcore Tolkien fans. Some characters, however, left something to be desired. Gimli the Dwarf was all gruff exterior, with no inner machinations to speak of (he has one line, in the Mines of Moria, that, while funny, seems terribly out of place). Pippin and Merry acted more like the Two Stooges than loyal fellows. However, they did provide the film with some much needed comic relief, and will get many opportunities to grow in the next movie of the trilogy. Any criticisms leveled at these three characters, however, do not detract from the movie at all. It should also be noted that all of the characters were perfectly cast. Any reservations I had about, say, Sean Astin as Samwise, or Liv Tyler as Arwen, were quickly put to rest. And some choices, like Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Viggo Mortensen as Strider, or even Elijah Wood as Frodo, were nothing short of perfect inspiration. "The Fellowship of the Ring" is not for the casual moviegoer. It demands your attention and, at times, that you do some homework before viewing. It's a movie epic in scope but aware of the importance of its small details (the musical score by Howard Shore, and the cinematography by Andrew Lesnie were always spectacular but never intrusive). And even though it runs a hair under three hours, you'll wish that the filmmakers had given you more. They will, don't worry. Although you'll need some time to once again be able to produce adrenalin and experience awe. And if the next two movies are anywhere near as good as this one, well, we're all going for a wonderful ride.
Rating:
Summary: Possibly one of the best movies ever made!
Review: Truly a magnificent dedication to the work of Tolkien. Though he may have been just a little annoyed at the fact that his beloved elvish and hobbit poetry was dropped, I think he would be well pleased at how closely Peter Jackson has followed his story.
The effects were so incredible that you didn;t even notice them and THAT's the hallmark of a great movie. Attack of the Clones would pale beside this!
Rating:
Summary: The reason I go to the movies
Review: Truly one of the greatest epics to have graced the screen! Pete Jackson did the impossible, making a film that pleases die-hards, but doesn't alienate the non-reading moviegoer crowd. A triumph of acting, storytelling and special effects. The cast is perfect! Jackson hit all the right notes of the novel, highlighting the themes of friendship, honor, temptation, the passing of a culture, the horrors of war and industrialization, and so much more... The music too is a triumph and gets only better with repeated listenings. Not for the little ones, the film is at times terrifying and exceeds most horror films on that level. Yet it is so much more -- beautiful, elegaic, majestic and grand! Everyone involved with this should win many awards, especially the cast as they are so fantastic! I can't wait for the next two!
Rating:
Summary: Unparalleled brilliance
Review: Truly, this is THE best picture of the year, though not the Extended Edition; I do own both and I felt compelled to review this one. Kudos to Peter Jackson for surfacing through the muck of the off the wall and quite ridiculous films he used to make, thank God. His artistry and vision made for a compelling motion picture. This film employed some of the best on screen talents. First, one of the greatest actors of all time, Sir Ian McKellan shines in a role he should for which he should have won Best Supporting Actor. Orlando Bloom shone through in his breakout performance, and got even better in The Two Towers, funny since they were filmed at the same time. And Viggo Mortenson is the dark horse hero, the unexpected sex symbol in a very powerful role protraying a very deep character. His is also a performance worth and Oscar nomination. Sean Astin and Elijah Wood were great, but convinving me that Hobbits were real. The cinematography was astounding, filmed in one of the most beautiful places on Earth: Australia. The sweep and scope of the camera angles and sceneic images are awe inspiring and breath taking. The visuals are mind boggling, the creatures that were created and the make up used on the humans (goblins and orcs and what not) was astounding. The Hobbit feet, though gross, are painstakingly applied and mastered, so to speak, even though their feet. Meticulous Peter Jackson, like Michael Mann and his Native American costumes in The Last Of The Mohicans. The script stayed true to the classic fairy tale, using many of Tolkien's timeless word. It was definitely a faithful adaptation of the literary classic trilogy. It's is a subtle allegory to the Bible and much of it is allegorical to the First World War. However, the allegory of C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia is more evident. The score is superb. Everyone seems to have a theme song. The Hobbits have a happy little ditty that demonstrates their generally jovial nature and happy lifestyle. The fairy's have floaty numbers, airy and sweet, very passionate. The dark forces of Saruman are represnted by percussion driven songs, very deep, dark and sinister sounding. As for the end, it leaves you hanging. If you haven't read the classic trilogy, you're gonna be mad, but you're gonna be on the edge of your seat because you want to keep watching and you just can't wait for the next event to happen. But you found out you had to wait a year, or a few weeks, days, whenever, depending on when you first saw Fellowhsip. But The Towers is well worth the wait. All in all, The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring is the best picture of 2002. Unfortunately A BORING MIND stole the prize from the rigtful winner. But I won't let that get me down and neither should you. This is science fiction/fantasy as at it's very best and can only be outdone by the rest of the movies in its own trilogy. This is a film with few peers and is truly a landmark of cinema, not just for the finished product but also for the uncommon practice of the process of shooting all three movies at the same time. This is a film that you should not miss, a story of triumph over adversity, loyalty, faith, devotion, romance and good over evil. This is a outstanding film and I give it my HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION POSSIBLE.
Rating:
Summary: La pelicula es fenomenal!
Review: Tuve la oportunidad de ver la version extendida y solo digo que es otra pelicula completamente diferente... Ahora necesito que alguien me diga si esta edicion tiene subtitulos en español!!! Muero por comprarla pero no hablo ingles, asi qeu requiero de alguin que me aclare lo de los subtitulos!!! gracias.
Rating:
Summary: A Twelve Year Old's Fantasy...Come to Life!
Review: Two years ago I received a phone call from my best friend telling me that they were making the Tolkien Books into movies. I immediately asked who the director was hoping to hell that it wasn't Speilberg or Lucas. Thank God for Peter Jackson. His vision and choice of staff have made reality out of my mind's eye interpretation of the LOTR Trilogy. As a twelve year old in the summer of '79 I should have been busy swimming and looking at girls...but instead found myself enthralled by the Tolkien books. It was nothing to read 60-70 pages a day. The whole while my mind was creating visions of the words for me. Now, I have a further extension of that world thanks to Hollywood. The screenplays are well written and stay as true to the books as ever. The sets are fantastic and absolutely transcend the ages. The development could have been more complete, such as adding Tom Bombadil (who saved the Fellowship right after it started) and the story of the Barrow Downs. But minute for minute this is the first time that film has done justice to books. If you saw this movie you know I speak truth...BUY THIS MOVIE!! It will not disappoint.
And remember..."Not all those who wander are lost."
Rating: 
Summary: I aprove the film completely AFTER reading the book log ago.
Review: Two, just to call your atention. I read de book long before knowing there was going to be a movie and I gotta say I love this film. I know that when a book has to be put as a movie, you can't expect to see everything just the same as in the manuscrit because a film's gotta have visual impact. Its an insult to Tolkien to say the book is better than the movie or otherwise because you cna't compare them. Some people complain about the movie being too different from the book. Well, it would be kind of boring if it was, don't you think? And lets not say it would be like five hours long or so.
As for the changes...well, my favorite scenes from the movie are the fight between Gandalf and Saruman inside Orthanc. That scene is practicaly original and was not in the book. I love the shots of Barad-dûr, which were not even suggested in the entire Lord of The Rings Trilogy. As I read the book, I didn't really liked Tom Bombadil, so I didn't mind they did not include him in the film. Ah, THAT scene, the one everbody talks about. I like strong women who are still beautiful and feminine. Yes, I like that Arwen saved Frodo herself, rather than Glorfindel giving him that horse. What was his name? It's more exiting, it'll sure be great for people who haven't read de book and puts at least two women taling in the entire film. The Lord of the Rings is a great adaptation. As a novel, is terrific, as a movie, just the same. The visual effects really deserved that Oscar, the plot is easier, there's great action -and if you thoght the orcs fighting was too much for you, you just whait for Helm's Deep- and New Zealand its just...its just too beautiful to be true.
|
