Rating: 
Summary: Its pish
Review: What is most vexing about this filming of LOTR, as an action movie, is that this, and at least the next, generation will, in the main, be robbed of their initial personal interpretation of one of the greatest stories ever told. The films is fast, loud and garish, leaving it for those intimate with the novel to add space, hue and texture as we watch. The mysticism, morality and horror of the story are reduced to a string of action pieces loosely strung together by abrupt nods to the original storyline. Those who don't benefit from familiarity with the book are experiencing an exciting film, perhaps, but one which, in its narrow focus, leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of telling the story it purports to. I would implore everyone to read the books before viewing, as you will lose forever the chance to experience it anew.
Rating: 
Summary: The Lord of of the Dingleberries
Review: What is this movie but a bunch of elves, dwarfs and fairys running around and killing each other over a wedding ring? It's all bad acting from the word go, and the music can't hype up what the story lacks. I have a theory on why people love these movies; they feel that because the directors and actors and writers try so hard to make an "Epic Saga of Biblical Proportions," that they (the movie-goers), must give the film makers positive reviews just for the effort. I am different. I will not give good reviews to a movie just because it's ten billion hours long. Good is good, fairyish is fairyish and my time is too important, as is yours, to be wasted on this midevil drivle. And now I will cast a spell. I call it the "I'm to influenced by movie advertising and special effects to think for myself spell." See, it's already working. Now go out and see the whole trilogy, fairy.
Rating:
Summary: TORTURE!!!
Review: What is wrong with that director! This movie is the worst movie to come out since BABE, PIG IN THE CITY! Seriously, I didn't stay in the theatre for more than three minutes after the movie began. The kid was a pretty good actor as far as I could tell. It was way too weird. I couldn't follow it at all. When they started torturing the small dude in the cauldron, I just walked out of the theatre. AND the theatre gave me a complete refund.
I'm sorry if I'm the only one who hated the movie. But this is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. I don't really like Harry Potter either anymore, but I'd definitely pass of a chance to see Lord of the Rings for the HP movie any day!
Rating: 
Summary: My Absolute Favorite Movie!!!
Review: What made this movie my absolute favorite? Well, it's just my type. A group of people (in this case an Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, etc.) get together on a common quest-- to destroy the symbol of ultimate evil. I love this movie and recommend to anyone 12 and up. The Orcs and other scary elements would be too much for younger kids. I saw the movie first, and then read all the books as well. That made the movie better seeing it after I had read the books too, because you catch something new in it every time.
Rating:
Summary: Must see over the theatrial version
Review: What makes the extended addition of the Fellowship so great is that it contains so many small, but important scenes from the book that were left out of the original version. Jackson does an excellent job of integrating simple, yet important details into the movie without dragging it down or becoming redundant. For everyone who complains that this still isn't true to the book, nothing is perfect, but as far as a literary adaptation to the big screen, I think this version gets very high scores. Sure, Tom Bombadil was left out, but it would have been really difficult I think to make those scenes work in the movie. Some of the extras that I like are the scenes between Frodo and Gandalf explaining the origins of the ring of power and giving more detail into Gollum's history. In addition, I think the scenes with the elves are excellent, especially the distributing of the gifts to the nine and the scene where Gimli falls in love with Galadriel. Everyone should purchase this edition of the movie because of all the extras it contains, and the way it brings the viewer deeper into the world of Middle Earth.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent in every way
Review: What more can be said of the first installment in the movie trilogy of The Lord of the Rings? This movie is absolutely stunning. I have yet to find one person (that I know) that has seen this movie AND not liked it. This movie has all of the action, drama, suspense and emotion that can be fit into a movie, and it leaves you thirsty for the next in the series. Highly recommended!!
Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding movie, but not the best movie of 2001
Review: What more can i say, 'Lord Of The Rings' is the ultimate fantasy movie of the year, but it's not the best movie of the year, 'Atlantis - The Lost Empire' is one of the best movies of this year.
The effects, Enya's two songs, the music, the cast, and the art direction are amazing, but the movie needed more sorcery.
Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant Film that Certainly Does the Book Justice
Review: What Peter Jackson accomplished in FOTR was more than simply adapting Tolkien's epic saga to the Big Screen. Jackson has brightened the future in the area of Fantasy movie-making. Without movies like LOTR and Harry Potter, could fantasy lovers ever dream of seeing more than the average disappointment in this genre.
Peter Jackson's brilliant infusion of enriched storytelling, multidimensional characters, and breathtaking cinematography was an accomplishment that has not received enough credit from both close minded critics and fantasy buffs. It was extant throughout the film that he loved the book far better than the money he was making. It always amazes me how such clever planning and artful screenplay adaptation can be robbed of all their glory by the shortsighted critic. Some reviews (the New Yorker's for example) seemed to criticize the book more than the movie. It was clear in that review that the columnist hadn't even bothered to read the books, for he claimed that Jackson made a sexist movie by not giving greater roles to the females. Tolkien's books had even less female parts than the movie. The exclusion of Tom Bombadil angered so many fans because it enriched the description of Tolkien's envisioned countryside and also because it provided arguably the greatest enigma of the whole trilogy. Yet who is to know how it would have affected the film? Those scenes with Tom Bombadil in the book are some of my greatest loved, but as far as movies go, FOTR was not created solely for the enjoyment of the well-read fan. It coincided with Tolkien's intentions to touch people everywhere and of every age. As to the extended action scenes, both arguments are valid concerning their length and graphicness. Tolkien was certainly not out to create a second rate action story, but neither was Jackson. Without continual reminders of the terror that encompassed the quest, those who hadn't read the books would perceive the movie as drifting into superficiality. Costumes and set design were perhaps the most risky area of planning. However, this is where Jackson's articulate direction emerged throughout the film, adding to the praise he has not fully receive yet. The constant pipe-smoking was an excellent example of the rustic, carefree lifestyle that both hobbits and humans enjoyed.
Rating: 
Summary: Go deeper into Jackson's vision
Review: What Peter Jackson did with this is very smart. You have the original theatrical version that nearly everyone has seen, then you have the extended editions. In the extended editions, they add at least half an hour of scenes that were originally cut. They added them in right where they should be in the movie. More than that, they took out a few tid bits from the other film to make the transition into the new scenes more steady. The scenes add to the development of the characters, as well as to the understanding of their surroundings and their journey.
Also, there are many documentaries about the making of the film. For any fan who is, as well, a fan of documentaries this is well worth the money. I found the one about the costume design rather interesting, though they should have elaborated on it a bit more. Everything you need to know (or want to know) about the making is contained on the last 2 disks. Cast commentaries, interviews with the cast and crew, the making of their vision, the storyboards, designs, artistry, etc.
Overall, I think if you're going to buy the film, buy the extended editions. You get more for your money, and a better understanding of Jackson's visions compared to Tolkien's.
As for the film itself, this is the slowest of the 3. As with the book, it's mainly based around the character development and the reasons behind their quest, this history of the rings, and things of that nature. I read the books after I saw the movies, so I had't noticed how much they deviated from the original story. Of course you have to keep in mind that there's a time limit that they must follow. FOTR is a long, long book with many details that would take upwards 5 or 6 hours to put on film. They can't expect you to sit in a theatre for that long. They knew this, so they had to make the decision to cut out entire chapters of the book. After reading the book, I wasn't at all bothered that they took out Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-wights. That part was all a bit hazy to me anyways. Besides, if you watch the extended edition of The Two Towers, you'll notice that they paid tribute to him through Treebeard, and actually touch on why they cut him out.
I think this a wonderful movie. The imagery is spectacular. The storyline, of course, is amazing (you can't give them credit for that, but they were smart to take on this project). It's wonderful to see Tolkien's vision come to life. I actually, before seeing the films, had never heard of Tolkien. I'm very very glad that did. Through these films, I found the world of Tolkien, and am now addicted beyond aid. It's a masterpiece, to put it plainly enough, that will live on for generations.
Rating:
Summary: Lots of action, good comaraderie, but where's the music? ...
Review: What struck me throughout watching the movie was - Wow there's a lot of action! Having read the book long ago, I simply didn't remember that much, but it was there!
In fact, there was so much action, and so many people in the story, that some viewers unfamiliar with the books might get lost. Therefore, if you are new to the story, sit on the edge of your seat, and pay close attention. The one theme in the film that I doubt any will miss is ~ One ring to rule them all ~ a theme repeated so many times, that, as one who had read the books a number of times, I started becoming irritated by its repetition. But I controlled my irritation when I thought to myself, Okay, those who have not read the books might lose sight of this crucial and overriding theme. So I let go, and kept enjoying the movie! As a long-ago reader of the book, I was disappointed that Tolkien's wonderful songs and poetry were all but missing. As a youth, I read the Lord of the Rings "trilogy" a number of times. One of the main things that kept me reading - since there was an overwhelming amount of detail in places - were the songs, the Elven/Elvish poetry, and the beauty of the landscapes and the people. The movie - The Fellowship of the Ring - does indeed capture much of the beautiful landscape visually, but gives very little space to the wonderful songs and poems that Tolkien wrote. (The movie's own music isn't bad, but mostly too slow for my taste, with very little that was memorable.) All in all, I'm glad they released this movie, the first of three planned (six movies might have been better!), and I have bought both DVDs, the regular release and the extended version. The extended version is better for those who read the books. But it makes the movie even longer. If you complain when movies get long, either take an intermission part way into the movie, or watch the shorter version! (If you consider yourself a true fan already, don't get mad at that advice! I'm trying to win the uninitiated. Tolkien fans will probably want to watch the extended version. But by this time, I'd guess almost all the Tolkien fans have at least seen the theatrical release!) I appreciated this movie FAR more than the ANIMATED versions released many years ago, which as an adult I hated: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Return of the King. I recently watched all of these animated version, but they weren't "real" enough to one who had read the books multiple times. The animated versions might be fine for very young kids, but adults and older children will most likely want to watch the movie version that is not animated. In this version of The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, animation is, gladly, subdued, and mostly appropriate. TO SUM UP: This is one of the best fantasy-genre films to date, NOT corny as some are. The film is based on serious literature from the "fantasy" genre, and is a serious adaptation. But the feeling of the movie is "darker" or heavier in my memory than the book felt, at least, in the book, The Fellowship of the Ring. Well acted. Well directed. Some beautiful visuals. Music, slow and haunting. A very good film overall. Ah, but for a portal to a REAL Middle Earth! ****1/2 - Enjoy! Stephen A. DeVore. Web sites: New Line Cinema's Official The Lord of the Rings Web site. And many Tolkien-fan sites. (Amazon doesn't allow links in user reviews, or I'd provide them. Sorry. Enjoy!) SIDEBARS. SIDEBARS. SIDEBARS.
- For those who want more specific information! FAITHFUL-TO-THE BOOK SIDEBAR: Is the movie faithful to the books? For any really lengthy book, most movies cannot hope to be. But it has been more than 20 years since I read this! For the most part, it seemed faithful to me. But even at 178 minutes (wow), the movie is still by far shorter than the book. There were some notable parts that were left out, of course.
For example, where they met the enigmatic Tom Bombadil and his wife comes to mind. And I already mentioned the songs and poetry. ANIMATION SIDEBAR:
The animation for the scene where the Elf Queen Galadriel was tempted with "the one ring" could have been done better; and the feeling of the scene could have felt more real. TECHNICAL SIDEBAR:
One small audio glitch in the theater, which I did not notice in the DVD, was a scene with the Elf Elrond. It seems some background audio was missing, for there was a strange silence that caught my audio-engineering ear! VIOLENCE AND OCCULT SIDEBARS: Violence? Yes, there are many battles. But though these battles are numerous, they are not overly gratuitous, or overly graphic (to my mind). It's simply part of the story. There is thankfully little gore. Occult? For those concerned about the wizardry -
Compared to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone or Chamber of Secrets, the wizardry in this film feels far more serious and realistic, so to speak, while in Harry Potter it feels silly and childish. For some reason, there are far stronger reactions from parents and Conservatives regarding the Harry Potter films than there are toward the Tolkien works. Maybe it's because the Potter films appeal to younger audiences. Maybe it's because wizardry and witchcraft are hugely prominent in the Potter films. There IS wizardry in this film, however. And the overall theme "One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie" is certainly dark. Yet the Tolkien books don't focus so much on the wizardry as they do the Good Will among the people in the Fellowship, and within the Land of Middle Earth, and on their desire to RID the land of "The Dark Lord". Therefore, it is a dark quest, with dark beings in it, and dark magic. It is the commonality of the pursuit of safety, peace, and goodness, however, that permeate the story. (I won't give away the ending.) Now but for a world where such cooperation exists so strongly as it did in Middle Earth in those days. ©2003 Stephen A. DeVore, Seattle, WA. (Stephen DeVore)
|
