Rating: 
Summary: A Lord of the Rings fans review
Review: First off, I have seen the Fellowship three times and am planning to see it many many times more. It was not at all boring but some of the words and dialog that they use can be a little confusing (like the names of things and places). The actors and actresses did a superb job and I and my friends have seen it multiple times. I am in the middle of the second book and I must say that I'm a little dissapointed that they left out so much stuff but if they put every thing in it that was in the book the movie would have been about 18 hours long or something for that ONE movie! Anyway I HIGHLY recomend you read the book and then go see the movie because that way it is easier to understand and you have a basic veiw of what's coming.
Rating:
Summary: See it twice before passing judgement
Review: First off, I should mention that I have always been a big fan of Tolkien, as much for his influence as his works.
A few weeks prior to the movie, I purchased and reread the trilogy (including The Hobbit). So the exact details of the books were very fresh in my mind when I first sat down to watch the movie. I'd imagine that for those who are bigger fans than I the details in the books are just as fresh in their minds, even though their last readings may be more distant.
Throughout the entire viewing, I found myself comparing it to the books. I lamented the huge portions of the trip from the Shire to Rivendell that were cut out; I was midly peeved at the role played by Arwen, and I gasped at the butchery of the meeting with Galadriel. When the movie was over, I was profoundly disappointed; I had been so concerned finding the flaws in the movie (where it differed from the book) that I was unable to enjoy it.
Not wanting to pass hasty judgement, I waited a few days and then saw it again. This was a wonderful decision.
The second time around, I found that I no longer compared the movie to the book. Instead, I was able to enjoy it for what it was: a fantastic movie, rather than an above-average adaptation of a novel. And this is what you must keep in mind while watching. If you are looking for a perfectly faithful reproduction of the novel, seek elsewhere. The movie is three hours long, far too short to perfectly mimic a novel like The Fellowship. Furthermore, there is a lot of the background material in the book that simply cannot be conveyed well in movie format.
On the other hand, judged as a movie, LOTR succeeds spectacularly on all levels. The landscapes and special effects are superb; the acting and casting are wonderful; the cinematography, although a bit rough in places (like the battles), is generally very well-done. Most importantly, the movie succeeds at being both epic and sentimental, humorous and frightening. The ability of LOTR to elicit such a wide range of emotions is testament to the fantastic interplay between the all the elements that make up the film.LOTR must be judged on its merits as a film, not as a screenplay adaptation. If you are a big fan of the books, it may take more than one viewing before you are able to do this. Once you've put aside your preconceived notions, however, you can scarcely be disappointed. LOTR is a truly epic film, and a few minor flaws should not prevent anyone from being wholly entertained and moved by it.
Rating: 
Summary: I hesitate to venture any criticisms of this movie...BUT...
Review: First off, I want to say that I enjoyed this movie and found it better than I'd expected, with wonderful special effects and a clear attempt to be faithful to Tolkien's structure and plot. It was clear that this was not just another Hollywood vehicle but a serious effort - from the casting to the script.
Even so, I found some significant shortcomings in the movie. I felt that the book's emotional and spititual essence did not reverberate through this movie. Perhaps this was simply because this was an "introductory" movie, one of only several to follow and the director felt that the plot needed to be emphasized. But I didn't find myself thinking about this movie for days nor did I find that it had an emotional resonance, the kind of resonance that makes you want to see the movie again and again (just as I wanted to re-read the books). There were a few words of wisdom that stood out but, for the most part, it seemed as though emphasis was given to action and adventures at the loss of characterization.
I know there are plenty out there who will disagree with me and I can certainly agree that Hollywood could have done worse. Elijah Wood is a warm and winning Frodo and others in the cast are equally appealing - to a point. But I urge viewers to think carefully about what makes a movie a classic, especially movies which have elements of fantasy. I'd argue that there has to be something enduring, a movie that goes beyond state of the art special effects and spectacle and gives equal weight to Tolkien's words, language and enduring soul. I didn't quite find that depth in this movie.
Rating:
Summary: A classic? Almost. The good, the bad, the shortcomings
Review: First off, I want to say that I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would and found it better than I'd expected, with wonderful special effects and a clear attempt to be faithful to Tolkien's structure and plot. This was not just another Hollywood vehicle but a serious effort - from the casting to the script. So credit is due for that much.
But I still found some significant shortcomings in the movie. I felt that the book's emotional and spititual essence did not reverberate through this movie. Perhaps this was simply because this was an "introductory" movie, one of only several to follow and the director felt that the plot needed to be emphasized. But I didn't find myself thinking about this movie for days nor did I find that it had an emotional resonance, the kind of resonance that makes you want to see the movie again and again (just as I wanted to re-read the books). There were a few words of wisdom that stood out but, for the most part, it seemed as though emphasis was given to action and adventures at the loss of characterization.
I know there are plenty out there who will disagree with me and I can certainly agree that Hollywood could have done worse. Elijah Wood is a warm and winning Frodo and others in the cast are equally appealing - to a point. But I urge viewers to think carefully about what makes a movie a classic, especially movies which have elements of fantasy. I'd argue that there has to be something enduring, a movie that goes beyond state of the art special effects and spectacle and gives equal weight to Tolkien's words, language and enduring soul. I didn't quite find that depth in this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Opinions from a gal who never read the books (shamefully)...
Review: First off, I'll confess to never having read the Trilogy; when I was a wee li'l thing, I saw the animated "Hobbit" film and the ensuing trauma was enough to deter me from touchin' those bookies for several years thereafter. Having said that, I approached "The Fellowship of the Ring" with a Tolkien-lackin' mind, propelled by my father, who had been dreaming of this big-screen experience since he was a kiddie. This movie is absolutely *breathtaking*. Tremendous. Gorgeous. *Wow*. The cinematography is incredible, the graphics are amazing, yet realistic...there simply aren't enough adjectives to pay justice to the sophisticated eye candy of "The Fellowship". Throughout the movie, I found myself marvelling over "what technology can accomplish these days", despite being a mere 22 years of age. What I'm saying is simply this: You do *not* have to be familiar with the books in order to savor the movie. The plot - which is surprisingly void of sap n' cheese - may occasionally prove to be a tad confusing for us unenlightened folk, but - for the most part - it's relatively easy to follow. According to my father, they did an admirable job of condensing the book into theatre format. Don't be intimidated by it's lengthy running time, either; I found myself pounding the arm rests for more at the ending credits. In short, a visually phenomenal movie that works the big screen to full advantage. You will *definitely* want to see this one in theatre. (On a side note, please carefully consider whether or not your li'l children are free of boogey-man phobias before taking them to this movie. The baddies in "The Fellowship" are *very* well constructed and pretty frightening to view, especially for the under-6 crowd. Throughout the packed movie theatre, I could hear all sorts of kiddie whimperings and shrieks...poor things.)
Rating:
Summary: HANDS DOWN, BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR!!
Review: First off, I've never read any of Tolkien's books, so this will be a totally unbiased review of the movie, free of any preconceptions on how the story should be adapted for the screen. I'm also not a fan of big-budget fantasy movies. I can honestly say that I stood in line and waited for this movie all because of marketing hype and nothing else. And I am so glad that I let myself be taken by the hype because this movie more than delivers. IT'S A MASTERPIECE!! I'll have to apologize right away because I'll be using numerous superlatives to praise this movie. I think this might be the first movie I've seen where all aspects of film-making are excellent. Casting-wise, the actors were all tailor-made for their roles. You simply cannot imagine other people in their place. Ian McKellen brings authority and humanity to his Gandolf. The only actor I know who equals his performance is that of Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi in the first Star Wars movie. Elijah Wood is spot-on, the perfect Frodo. He deftly portrays the gradual changes in Frodo's character. From innocent, frolicking young hobbit, to a confused character, fearful, yet at the same time brave in facing the enormity of his task, Wood never misses a step. The supporting characters also shine. Aragon's valor is convincing in Viggo Mortensen's hands, while Sean Bean flawlessly portrays the conflicted character of Gorgon. Sean Astin and the two other actors who play Merry and Pippin are excellent buddies to Frodo. These three stand out as unique characters instead of being the usual flat, dumb-dumb side-kicks seen in movies. Liv Tyler and the always amazing Cate Blanchett are both regal and breathtaking as important otherworldly elves. I can't remember all of their names or their characters, but suffice it to say that this an ensemble cast that works perfectly together, yet all of them individually stand out. Performance and a tight script contribute to this success. As for the story, it is a well-developed and exciting journey which lets us sympathize with the characters while giving us the thrill of a lifetime. Other reviewers have given thorough summaries so I will no longer attempt to do that here. The story fuses all kinds of thought: mythic, philosophical, theological all into one meaty material. In short...it's NEVER boring. Even if you haven't read the book, you won't get lost. The first five-minutes of the film is spent with a voice-over by the fantabulous Cate Blanchett relating the background and premise of the story. NOw, onto the best part...the production. I fear that I have no words to describe the grandeur and beauty of this movie. Peter Jackson and his production team have created worlds that simply dazzle the eyes and take your breath away. The sheer enormity of this movie makes you wonder how much work and imagination went into this film. My poor jaw spent a good portion of this movie hitting the floor. There are so many "oooooh", "aaaah" and scary moments that your senses are in for a treat. The music, before I forget, is also fab! Its operatic sound is the perfect background for a grand epic like Lord Of The Rings. The camera also moves rapidly in order to keep up with the raging battles. But unlike in Baz Luhrmanns trashy Moulin Rouge, the frenetic camera movemets in LOTR are effective in increasing the tension and excitement. In Moulin Rouge, it was excessive and unnecessary, bordering on pretentious (You can almost hear Baz Luhrmann saying "Ooooh, look, I'm making ART!"). Totally shameless and annoying. In LOTR, it enhances the movie because it is only used in appropriate moments. I can't believe Time magazine called Moulin Rouge the second best picture of the year when LOTR is OBVIOUSLY FAR SUPERIOR. Heck, LOTR has a story and is sublimely free of Nicole Kidman's wooden acting. But I digress. The best quality of this film is that, first and foremost, it gives importance to the story and the characters. The CGI and other special effects, no matter how amazing, are only there as backdrops to the intricate plot. You never feel as if you're being manipulated with a light show. Instead, you feel as if you've been sumptously drawn into a world which you don't ever want to leave. Despite its length of three hours, you leave the theater craving for more, while at the same time, feeling extremely satisfied. It's hard to explain. You'll just have to watch it. In this age of DVD's, home theater systems and Pirated videos, it's becoming more difficult for filmmakers to convince the viewing public to stand in-line and wait outside theaters to watch a movie. With LOTR, we are reminded once more how the medium of cinema can be so powerful and inspiring. To Mr. Peter Jackson and his team....a big thanks! I'll definitely be the first in line for the Two Towers this December.
Rating:
Summary: The Fellowship of the Ring
Review: First off, it is delicious irony that despite the continued disdain of the media industry towards sci-fi/fantasy, the two most anticipated--and best--movies of the year are both fantasy films. That said...I can't be sure this one will top my list of most beloved films, but that's only because I'll have to see the other two before I can decide. Fellowship is an absolutely stunning, magnificent film. Yes, it does not completely match Tolkien's books, but some things cannot be moved from page to film. It could hardly be better, however. One does not watch this movie; one lives it, right along with the characters. We expected an epic, sure, but we got a heart-deep story as well. One can scarcely believe that the Nine are imaginary--how could it be that Frodo's courage, Samwise's steadfastness, Pippin's silliness, Boromir's strength, Aragorn's nobility, and Gandalf's caring are only made up? Not to mention everybody else... Go see this film, and see it in a theatre where you can fully appreciate the vistas that require a big screen. You will regret it if you don't.
Rating: 
Summary: Bored with the Ring Already
Review: First off, let me put it right on the table: I have never read "The Lord of the Rings", though years ago I did read "The Hobbit". Now I'm something of an anomaly in my family, because all the otherGuys'n'Gals did devour this trilogy. So really, for someone who never read it, I've certainly heard enough about it over the years. I know character and place names, the way children sometime pick up details about the parents' childhoods through hearing twicetold tales. Twenty years ago, I saw the lambasted cartoon version of LofR. Well, contrary to what so many have said--I don't see the difference between the two! I mean, that wasn't SO bad, but this is not at ALL as good as I was led to believer. Don't get me wrong, I wanted to like this movie badly: after all, threee hours is quite an investment of one's time. But I felt cold and unaffected by the goings-on. Probably didn't help that I was there on an unsatisfactory date, either. But all the more reason to escape into fantasy, you see! And the one detail that annoyed me more than anything else, was this: There are SO many scenes of an outstretched palm on which the ring is sitting. Every single palm--and there were several that had a go at this--was filthy dirty. One friend countered and said that I had to understand that folks were on this journey and would of course get dirty. But I turned right around and said, Yeah but this ISN'T a depiction of real life in the Middle Ages, it's a a fantasy. So why couldn't these people be clean? I had silenced my opposition. Think you really had to be already into this scene to get much out of the adventure besides a stiff neck.
Rating:
Summary: Good, too long
Review: First off, let me state that I have never actually read the books. HOWEVER, I believe all you Tolkein-heads who say the movie was close to the books.
I guess for fans of the book, this was a good thing. For the rest of us, however, three and a half hours of fantasy is on the long side. By the third hour, I wanted to yell "Haven't you guys heard of FedEx?!"
That being said, I liked the rest of the movie. The acting, visual effects, music, and location choices were all top notch. For the first part of the movie, the story moved along at a good pace. When it hit hour two and a half, though, things began to bog down. Spending forty five minutes in one spot is something that most movies try to aviod.
I would have rated this movie higher if the following had been done:
1) Chop it down to 2.5 hours, or at least put a lull in the action half way through so I can go buy more food without missing anything
2) The ending was a real bummer. The director could have done a much better job of wrapping things up and leaving you wanting to go see the second and third movies.
Rating:
Summary: Tremendous movie, sub standard dvd
Review: First off, the movie itself is fantastic. I do believe tolkein would have been proud. but i won't bore you with details of the actual movie, but i would like to warn you of the dvd. The first few times i put the disc in, everything went smoothly. However, i recently noticed that the audio fades in and out at some points. I removed the disc to check for a scratch, however i found none. I re-inserted the disc and ran it through the same scene where the audio failed, and it ran fine this time. I hadn't changed any of the audio settings, yet none the less i still hear the audio fade in at random points of the dvd. I doubt this problem is present in all dvds, but be warned, you may experience some audio difficulties, but i still suggest you buy the dvd anyways.
|
