Rating: 
Summary: One of the best movies I have ever seen.
Review: (Age 28) I loved this movie and suggest it for those who have read the book and for those who haven't. Anyone who likes fantasy should love this movie. I consider it the best film of this genre that I have ever seen. I will be watching the next two and I can only hope that they will film the Hobbit in the future so that the film set is complete. Everyone put in your two cents for them to make the Hobbit so we can see Bilbo's adventure and how he found the ring and fought the dragon Smaug.
Rating:
Summary: ASH NAZG DURBATULUK ASH NAZG GIMBATUL
Review: (For any one who does not understand the heading read the book). This was a good movie a VERY good movie. I have very much enjoyed the books. they are the classic of fanasy books. i have seen the animated movies which are good, with some exeptions. when i saw the trailer to this movie i knew i would like it. i was right. from begining to end this was a great movie. it had a nice texture with its look and feel to it. dirty finger nails, dirty tables, and so on that gave it a lived in look. the movie has the basics of the story. it does cut out some parts but that is to be expectied. i mean it is three hours long! it looked close to the way i imagined it when i read the book. the nazgul looked good. the balrog was exilent! saruon's eye was good. ian mcellen was good as gandalf. elisah was ok as frodo. even lee was good as the evil wizard (he is not good in some movies). the orc looked good as well and also the urak ahai. there are some visual let downs. the shadow realm when frodo puts on the ring does not look good ( expept the nazgul pale kings look good). when gladrial is temted by the ring and turns dark that looked hooky. however it was a very good movie preserving the sprit of tolkine. i cant wait for the sequils. i hope they do a live action version of the hobbit.
Rating: 
Summary: If you have not read the book, then this movie rocks!
Review: (My review refers to the 'theatrical' version DVD.)If you have not read the book, then this movie rocks!
And I have not when I watched the movie in theaters, so I found this movie, like most others, to be the "ne plus ultra". Forget Star Wars, I said. Forget Hogwarts and Harry Potter. Watched it twice. The casting choices for, above all, Gandalf and Bilbo as well as Frodo, Legolas (the surprise package of the movie), Aragorn (although he was only 2nd choice), Boromir, Samwise and Galadriel could hardly be topped. The location couldn't be better. Visual effects are 'magical', even though they have less CGI than most Lucas movies. Like many, I got curiouser, to borrow a Lewis Carroll word, and bought the books, including "The Hobbit". I had to fight through the tightly spaced lines and admittedly strange "English" language (Winston Churchill would have found it just right) but I finished all four. Reading brings realization that the movie will inevitably fall short. I'm not a literary snob. I hardly read books of this sort, although I do read reference books (science, history etc.). I don't gripe much about the compression of time frame. We all know Tom Bombadil and the episode on the Barrowdowns were removed. Regrettable (I would love to see Peter Jackson's take on Tom) but forgiveable. It's the alteration of the characters that disappointed me. I found it strange for Elrond to say in the movie that Aragorn has strayed from the path and has chosen exile, when in the book story, it was Elrond himself who set Aragorn on the path (of reclaiming his kingship), and knows all his labors, being his foster father. I also found it strange that Aragorn doubted whether he could be King. Sure, Aragorn had doubts, but not on this one, he never doubted his proper place. He willingly peered into the palantir and challenged Sauron because he knew his place. He summoned the Dead because he knew his place. He may look ragged, and his kingdom may be in tatters but he is King. They also made Isildur look like a miserable power-hungry fool, like all he did was push all Middle Earth over the cliff of damnation. For the record, Isildur was a great man, a mighty warrior and righteous ruler, second only to his father Elendil. And while he took the ring, he never really did anything else wrong; he returned to Gondor, turned over Gondor, which he co-rules and over which he has a legal claim, to his nephew(if he was a bad man, he could have taken Gondor for himself), he planted the White Tree, then went north to Arnor, but was ambushed in Gladden Fields and was killed. Anyone would have failed the test of the Ring, even the Wise (Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel) refused the Ring in succession when it was offered freely, because they knew they would fail. I also think the filmmakers took too much liberty enhancing the role of Arwen. As Tolkien expert Michael Martinez says, it is not inconceivable for Arwen to wield a sword and take an active part in aiding the Quest. I agree, but now that she has taken over the part of Glorfindel in Part 1, I don't think it is too far-fetched to assume that she will also take the role of Eowyn in Part 3 (The Return of the King). Perhaps Arwen, and not Eowyn, will face the Captain of the Nazgul in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. What's to stop the filmmakers from going that far? And why did Peter Jackson miss the special affection Gimli had for Galadriel when they finally met? Except perhaps for Sam, Gimli was Galadriel's greatest champion, he was even prepared to fight Eomer to the death over Galadriel's honor. That Galadriel was a witch was a myth (believed by Boromir and Gimli and most people who don't know her), but the movie seems to believe it. And how could they cut the part where Galadriel gives each member of the Company a gift? (OK, they included the part where Frodo gets the phial.) It could have been a wonderful part, especially for Sam and Gimli, who gets the seemingly impossible. Movies like Star Wars (1977), and now the Lord of the Rings, are made by the details that almost seem trivial, but which make the stories lifelike, and connect to us. LOTR:FOTR has the details, too much in some, wonderful in many, and lacking in many others. It does connect to us, and is still a great effort (I wanted to give it 3.5 stars), especially for those who have not read the book, but a little more faithfulness to the book and its characters would have been welcome. After all, there are a lot of Tolkien readers out there, wouldn't you want them to be pleased, too? I'm almost tempted to counsel fans not to read the books.
Rating: 
Summary: How can a film so beautiful be so Boring!
Review: (Okay, I realize that Tolkien fans are vicious and do not take kindly to dissenting opinions, but hear me out....)
Do not go see this movie without having prior knowledge of the books and the Third Earth world created by Tolkien. This film's storytelling does not stand on its own to the "brillance" others have deemed it to be.
The cinematography is breathtaking, the sound editting is wonderful, the acting is mostly decent.....but I kept looking at my watch for most of the movie. There are a few wonderful and intriguing scenes, but they come too far apart and elements of suspense, intrigue, and adventure are not pursued as much as they should be.
Sure, Third Earth may have been the basis and forefather of Fantasy since; but like there wouldnt be a Star Wars without a 2001....doesnt mean that 2001 is more enjoyable to the majority of todays' audiences.
Also, do NOT take children to see this film...its also not necessary a fun "date movie" either unless you are both role playing gamers into this world. If you want a magical world easy to enjoy that captures wonder...go see a nice fun movie that stands on its own like Harry Potter. LOTR requires repeat viewings and/or seeing the entire trilogy of films (aha! brilliant marketing strategy!) for it to really mean anything.
Rating:
Summary: Earthshaking fantasy movie-making at the apex!
Review: (This review of mines is just on the movie) My fantasy film taste would be changed forever when I first saw the first installment in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, entitled "The Fellowship Of The Ring". I was completely blown away by the out-of-this-world directing from none other than Peter Jackson. The directing and the landscapes of Rivendell, the mines of Moria, and the mountains, and The Tower Of Orthanc are breathtaking. It's also mind boggling how they manage to make the Hobbits shorter than the actors that portray as the actors are at least a foot taller than the characters they play while others are shorter than the characters they play. All of these things make this entire story come to life. This could as well be the ultimate movie trilogy off all time. The power of the Ring is not to be reckoned with as others have fallen to its power with disastrous results. Many have tried to use it but terrible things happened to them, whether it was being killed or still being alive but being tormented, or tortured by its deceitful power. It's was now up to a young Hobbit by the name of Frodo Baggins to destroy the ring by casting it into the fires of Mt. Doom where it can be unmade. Many dangerous obstacles lay ahead as numerous enemies hunt them down and the power of the ring gradually grows heavier showing how evil tries to all of it's might to continue to endure the heroic efforts of good and it almost runs parallel to the real life battle between good and evil and how evil is a threat to all life on earth and how greed and desire for power can corrupt even the highest ranking leaders of society. Also it even tells of how any ordinary person can be able to change the course of history. This epic movie is outstanding on all fronts! I'm not sure how Tolkien would've reacted to the screen adaptation if he were still alive, but I think that no fantasy movie has worked so well in being adapted to the silver screen like LOTR has. The excellent Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone is more like a children's horror cartoon by comparison and even the most recent Star Wars: Attack Of The Clones doesn't top "Fellowship" although the stunning special effects, and futuristic cityscapes do give Fellowship some competition. Enough of the film comparisons. I don't think that the cast could've been better. Ian McKellan was perfect for playing Gandalf. Gandalf has some hilarious lines during the beginning and shows unbelievable bravery and boldness. But then all of the major characters show these traits. No one in my opinion could've done a better job portraying the evil wizard Saruman than actor Christopher Lee. The four Hobbits by the name of Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee, Peregrine Took, and Merry Pippin are great too. Over time, new characters would come into the picture. Overall, from my perspective, "Fellowship" is more of like an introduction to the individual characters and them interacting and with alliances forming and missions being laid out and this film is more of a warm-up to the cataclysmic events that would take place in it's follow up "The Two Towers" and what'll become even more cataclysmic with the epic finale "The Return Of The King". Legolas is astounding with his eye popping archery skills and I'll bet that he'll make girls everywhere fall head over heels. John Rhys Davies was perfect for Gimli's part. While I thought that Gimli in "Fellowship" was somewhat annoying and somewhat pompous in this film, he would go through vast improvements in the second LOTR movie, becoming much more entertaining, and become one of my favorite characters. More than likely there are other characters who aren't showcased in the movie and that probably disappointed some but the ones that were though were superbly portrayed. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job of directing the scenes.. All of these things make this entire story come to life. Bilbo Baggins is wonderfully played by Ian Holm. What I find great about this movie is that while parts of the film are extremely violent in the battle scenes with countless villain Orcs being killed in battle, there is little blood and there is no splashes of blood that'll make one feel queasy and that really makes this movie even more astounding. This is the perfect example of making seemingly realistic battle scenes without much blood. Boy I tell you, seeing this at the big screen was a hell of a visual assault to the imagination in a positive sense with incredible special effects, intense battle scenes, spellbinding scenery, both the landscape, the caves, The Shire, etcetera etcetera. I am so grateful that I did not miss out on seeing this one the big screen as when it came out on the small screen, the small screen robbed this epic fantasy film of much of it's power but that does not mean that it's no longer intense, quite the opposite. It's just that the big screen is like the events are almost actually happening before ones eyes and that, my friend, is epic fantasy filmmaking. No one alive today will ever see epic fantasy movies that are so astounding like the Lord of the Rings trilogy or surpass it. Things only would get better with the successor installment "The Two Towers" and I cannot wait for "Return of the King". Although Fellowship isn't as strong as its follow-up, this movie has already become one of my favorite fantasy films of all-time and should be in every movie lover's collection. Believe me, this was three hours well spent! I look forward to the day when I can spend over 9 hours watching all three LOTR movies straight through. I'm now finally exhausted of words to say now.
Rating:
Summary: I can't help but laugh
Review: **Probably some spoilers here in case you haven't seen the movie yet!** The same thing that has plagued the books now plagues the movie. The elitists, the "literati", and the truly artsy citizens of the world have found a common enemy-- the masterpiece known as The Fellowship of the Ring. What are some of the common critiques, from people like Ebert, the Golden Globes (and undoubtedly Academy) Award selection committee, and some of our fellow reviewers on Amazon? 1. "The fight scenes are redundant; I feel like we go from one fight to another; there's too much violence." Let's count 'em-- in the three hours of this movie, there are 4 major fight scenes, 3 where someone actually dies. The first is in the prologue, which can hardly be compared to the following fights. The second is on Weathertop, where unfortunate Frodo takes the brunt of the Nazgul attack. The third is in the depths of Moria, against the orcs there, and the fourth is on Amon Hen near the end of the movie, against Saruman's Uruk-Hai. The ONLY similiarties between Moria and Amon Hen are that there are orcs, and they die (well, that and Legolas is a stud both times). How you can get tired of this stuff amazes me. It is filmed beautifully, and avoids the newest en vogue Hollywood fight cam that never really let's you see anything that's going on. At the same time, they are both so fast-paced that they're over practically as soon as they begin. The total time taken up by all of these scenes is a small, small fraction of the movie. 2. "3 hours was over-long; the movie loses rythm with such a long running time; this is a SLEEPER." Obviously this does not come from those critics who thought it too violent, since they were clutching at their armrests to keep from bursting into tears. However, to the point at hand. I think it's about time we get what we pay for at movies-- if I pay 7+ bucks to see a mvoie, I want quality and lots of it. Every scene in this movie is important for the story, drives ahead the plot, and shows the evil that we are facing here. The smallest interaction between Sam and Frodo becomes hugely important in determining the future of the Ring, the Quest, and the fate of Middle Earth. Those who could not follow it for 3 hours would indeed be better suited at a movie like A Beautiful Mind. There is a 2 hour movie that feels like 3 hours, and being as the main character is schizophrenic, you don't have to be overly attentive to appreciate the drama. Personally, I can't wait for the 4.5 hour director's cut of Fellowship! 3. "The dialogue is cheesy; the words are overblown and pretentious." This is the one that gets me the most, honestly. If there was ever a man who knew how to use language, it was Tolkien, as any reader of the books can attest to. When he wanted it of a higher form than we are used to in daily life, he was going to put it in there. And the great thing is, 90% of all the dialogue in the movie is right out of the books! Often it is in a different position, or used in a slightly different way, but most of it is Tolkien's original work. Those who would see Fellowship in modern english would ruin one of the most beautifully crafted parts of Tolkien's work. This was a man who was sad at the changes the english language was taking, and worked hard at preserving some of the meaning behind words, and because of this often used english that is somewhat unfamiliar-- but at the same time, amazingly lyrical. You want a critique of the movie? Not enough of Tolkien's songs! But I was glad to see the one that they did put in there. All in all, a masterpiece. Hats off to Peter Jackson & Co!
Rating:
Summary: Good, Very good.
Review: *This review is for the theatrical version*
I am a big Lord of The Rings fan. And I think the movie was great. The acting was good, the costumes and props were well made with great attention to detail, and unlike other movies, the hordes of badguys are not all CG. Although, there are a few things I hoped would be in the movie from the book that are not. Examples: Tom Bombadil is missing, some dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman was changed, and there are other small things changed or taken out in the transformation from book to movie. Although if the movie were exactly like the book, it would be long enough to warrant an intermission. Still, it was a very good movie overall. I suppose 4.5 stars would be a more accurate reflection of my opinion, but I apparently can't do that. From what I hear, the DVD is going to have more footage, so I might not be disappointed after all. Good movie.
Rating:
Summary: Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS
Review: - This most be one of the best movies i've ever seen. But, Peter Jackson's (BRAINDEAD & BAD TASTE) first huuuge project was not perfect. Sure, he mastered to transfer Tolkien's world and charachters from the book to the big screen, but i just couldnt give the movie 5 stars due to editing, cutting and background errors (you could actually see one of the crews jeeps in the background in one of the scenes). But, beside this: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is the best fantasy/adventure film i've ever seen. And this is just the first movie out of three... =)
Rating:
Summary: Forget the special features--
Review: --the movie is the draw of this DVD set. This is the version of the film that so many of us wanted to see the first time around. The film that was released was stellar, but this version is brilliant. In the extended DVD, the space and quiet of the books is returned to the sometimes almost-frantic pace of the originally released movie. Ian Holm's performance as Bilbo, as well as Kate Blanchet's Galadriel, are given their due at long last with extended scenes bringing the richness and complexity of their characters into full light. Aragorn's arc is finally fleshed out, with the weight of Arwen's decision resting on him as well as the gradual acceptance that he is not Isildur, but his heir.
For fans of Sean Bean, John Rhys-Davies and Sean Astin, this version of the film will delight as all are allowed to explore the spectrum of their characters further than the original release's time constraints allowed. The whole release is top rich new viewing experience that will ring true to lovers of the trilogy everywhere. I'm looking forward to seeing the special features, but once again, the movie is worth the price of the DVD set alone. The bookends, the tickets, the trading cards, the magazine and the National Geographic DVD are all very well packaged and nice quality. Overall, all the special features and perks from buying the collectors set serve as lovely icing for its centerpiece: the first two DVDS that contain the wonderful new version of cinematic treat Peter Jackson has given Tolkien fans everywhere. My recommendation: BUY IT TODAY.
Rating:
Summary: Great film, Out-of-this-world DVD collection
Review: -MOVIE-
"The Fellowship of the Ring" was absolutely incredible. Very true to the book in most places, it simply blew me away when I saw it. The story has always been a favorite of mine, and I had high hopes for this film. It was thought that a live-action Lord of the Rings was impossible, but Director Peter Jackson has certainly suceeded in bringing it to life. The astounding special effects highlight and enhance the world of Middle-Earth in ways that they could not have just a few years ago. While a bit long and tedious, it is arguably one of the best films in recent years. The DVD format only makes it all the more impressive. The image and sound enhancements are great to experience. The 30 minutes of extra footage not only add to the story, but they allow you to see some other characters more in-depth than you could in the Theatrical version. I find that the original version flows a little better, but I also find myself drawn to the Extended edition because of those little additions that will become more important later on. -SPECIAL FEATURES-
All I can say is "Wow." Two discs filled with documentaries. To some people this material is completely worthless. Well, watching these features helps you gain a much better understanding of Middle-Earth, the planning, the shooting, and the visual effects. The two documentaries that I especially liked were "The Fellowship of the Cast" and "A Day in the Life of a Hobbit." In these two features, the castmembers share their experiences on and off the set throughout the months of filming. If you like these, then the Cast Audio Commentary is also fun to listen to. It doesn't stop there. These discs are filled with a truckload of stuff that takes hours to watch. Even if you find the documentaires and "Making Of" features on DVDs boring, you just may want to watch some of these. Overall, this is one of the greatest DVD collections ever put on the shelves. Perhaps THE greatest.
|
