Rating: 
Summary: Here is a story that will break your heart
Review: I would like to start with a quote by C.S. Lewis: "Here are beauties that will pierce like a sword or burn like cold iron. Here is a story that will break your heart."I saw this movie on opening day, and I have not been able to write about it until now because I was so shocked. This film picked me up in the first few minutes and carried me along with it. I experienced everything the characters went through; my whole system went on overload. Before I start nitpicking, however, I would like to state two facts. 1. If you go expecting to see the movie be just like the book, you're going to hate it. A movie CANNOT be a book, and a book CANNOT be a movie. It is perfectly impossible, unless you can make an apple an orange and vice versa. 2. This is only act 1 of a three act drama. Good. That said, we can continue. This is a wonderful movie, period. Since a film consists of three elements: background, characters, and effects, I shall cover all 3, including complaints I have seen. The first is background, and I'll put the script into this topic. New Zealnd is Middle Earth. I was simply awed by the closesness of the two. The Shire is beautiful; it has that lush, green, homey sense Tolkien has in his books. Rivendell was also neat. It demonstrated nicely the collision of two cultures, Elven and Man, for Elrond was both. It is mostly Elvish, for example everthing is outdoors. However, there are very human elements as well, like warm beds and rich indoor decorations. Moria is suitably grand, yet morbid. Lorien is beautiful with lots of trees, and I liked the way there were so many lamps lit everywhere at night. Isengard is cold and impersonal, and the mining is one of the best parts of the film.
I don't see why everyone says this movie has a bad script. It is not Tolkien, but Tolkien's dialogue works much better to the page than the reel. However, statements are taken right from the book, like "shortcut to mushrooms," "...if by my life and death I can protect you, I will." "Fool of a Took," etc. Some of it is missing, true. I would have liked to hear the part about looking fair and feeling foul. But, all in all, it works. Next, and most importantly, are the characters. Don't forget that there are many, many characters in this story, and not all will be fleshed out in the first act. Frodo is done admirably well by Elijah Wood. The scene after the balrog brings tears to my eyes, as when he is trying to slip away from the fellowship. Sam is of the same caliber. He is not dog-like, yet the message is clear. He will do anything, even suffer through a journey worse than death for Frodo. Merry and Pippen are simply hilarious. I admired the script a lot for this, for in such a dark movie humor is almost impossible. However, it is done and done gracefully and successfully. Trust me, these two will steal your heart.
Aragorn is a tough and silent ranger, and I know we'll see his character grow throughout the story. I was dissapointed with Legolas and Gimli's lack of time, but I think that Aragorn and Boromir needed center stage for obvious reasons. I would bet money that the Elf and Dwarf will be main characters in the next film. For all of you fans, Legolas does walk on snow! It is a sight to see.
I have heard people say that Boromir was freaky. I disagree. For me, he was one of the most well-developed characters in the first film. He is a brave and courageous soldier who is tempted through his good intentions. We see his kindness when he teaches the little hobbits to fight, but we see his pride when he tries to seize the Ring from Frodo. In the end, in one of the best scenes, he redeems himself. He fights like a man possessed to save his friends (and his soul?), and in one of the most heart-rending scenes in the film, the fighting Uruk-Hai finally get the better of him. (It's not easy, trust me!)
Gandalf, too, was amazing. Among the Hobbits he is a nice grandfatherly old man, but watch out! He will show his ferocity when faced with Saruman or a balrog. Saruman is also very neat, a very hateful villain who goes power-hungry.
Some people say that Elrond is too mean, but I found him only stern and a little fierce. Elrond was these, for he was not in an easy position throughout the whole book. Galadriel was interesting, to say the least. I am not sure if I liked her interpretation all in all, but I think that the mirror scene where she morphs into that thing is a perfectly valid interpretation, for all of you who are complaining. It might not be yours, but the book does say that she grows terrible in the books. I rather liked that aspect, even though I am not quite sure if I agree it was that drastic. Arwen's role is small, so don't worry about any Xenarwen. She is onscreen for about 10 minutes total.
The orcs are disgusting, the hobbits are beautifully simple, and the Black Riders are terrifying. Lastly, there are effects. I will be the first to tell you I am no computer guru, but, as the average Elf on the street, I can honestly say that I didn't think "oh, effects" when I saw them. Indeed, I didn't even notice! (Big relief after Star Wars E. I, I can assure you.) The cave troll was an ugly troll, and the balrog is awesome, even if it does not agree with your own personal interpreation. The size differences are seamless. Not once did I get jarred back to reality. Frodo really looked 3'6. Gollum, though we only see his face, outline, or hands, looks like a flesh and blood creep. If I didn't know through common sense that one cannot do a balrog any other way, I would not have known that CGI exists in this story. Also, I liked the zoomy cameras. Battles are hectic and confused things, and that technique helped to further the feeling that you are there. I suppose we could have seen the conventional overhead shots, but is that what, say, Aragorn saw as he was fighting for his life? Concerning Gandalf and Saruman's duel: I think it is a valid interpretation. We don't know all that happened, and I'm sure that the two wizards didn't simply talk over coffee. The scene doesn't last very long anyways. I found it a good way to show how powerful Saruman was. He overpowered Gandalf pretty quick. Keep in mind, that in The Two Towers, the tables will turn, and I think the contrast will help understanding. I know this film moved faster than the books. There is a reason for that, I think. The book was, with the exceptions of the Shire, Rivendell, and Lorien, a continuous battle or chase. The events in the film were tightened up to ooze that very feeling. My only complaint is Lorien is hardly a place of rest. Oh well. I know that parts did have to be sped up, even though more time there would have been nice. Yes, this movie has its faults. They are very small ones, thank goodness. However, I don't think I can single any out until I see at least "The Two Towers," because until then I cannot say for sure what was lacking. One cannot honestly critique Les Miserables, for example, after only the first act. The story has just begun! My only big complaint is that I have to wait a whole year to see the next film.
Rating:
Summary: Characters finding their own heroism
Review: From Frodo and the other hobbits, to Aragorn, and including Boromir, Gimli, and Legolas, each character finds their heroism. One of the masterful touches in this movie is the subtlety - Jackson doesn't bang you over the head with Aragorn's reluctant acceptance of "his people." If you aren't attentive, you miss it, as well as a whole other bunch of things like Bilbo's trolls. I saw it on Thursday and again on Saturday. It exceeded expectations, as I went in wondering how anyone could film The Fellowship of the Rings in a way that didn't confuse the entire audience. The casting is nearly perfect (I didn't care for Elrond). The one disappointment is Galadriel, which other reviewers have mentioned. For those reviewers claiming the Gandalf character imitates Obi-Wan, bear in mind this was written decades before George Lucas dreamed up his elderly mentor. Better to say that Obi-Wan imitates Gandalf.
Rating:
Summary: this is an amazing movie
Review: I don't know how to put a review into words that would do this movie justice. But here goes.
I liked the movie for these reasons. I have never seen a movie that interprets emotion as well as a book until this movie. Somehow the combination of the costumes, lighting, special effects, and camera angles made it so you could feel the presence of each individual character. It was truly an amazing experience. You actually felt that you were a part of the plot as if you were reading the book, and I am baffled at how that is possible. I think that it is entirely worth going out to see and possibly see again, this is a great movie.
Rating:
Summary: Finally! A fantasy masterpiece for the cinema!
Review: A cinematic version of Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS ranks up with the hope that Lucas will indeed make another Star Wars Trilogy, and, I think I can safely say, this is one of the most anticipated films in the movie industry's long and checkered history. You would think it's movie paradise, considering Lucas has been in the midst of another Star Wars trilogy and LORD OF THE RINGS has finally got a cinema deal (live action!), but PHANTOM MENACE proved something of a disappointment (Mesa Jar Jar Binks!), and I think quite a few people will enter into the theatre with a certain amount of trepidation. There's a reason for that. Three animated Tolkien films have been released with very problematic results. The 1978 Bakshi release is just embarrassing; the film is both incoherent and confusing. Rankin & Bass's two movies are fine for little kids; those two films are Tolkien for Saturday Morning cartoons. They proved my introduction to Tolkien and for that I am thankful, but the movies still fail to capture the grandeur of Tolkien's imagination. There are two things to consider here about a work of literature. Although all good literature has a polarization effect on its readers, this work has a gigantic legion of followers which are extremely dedicated to Tolkien's vision (I count myself a member of this camp). The other camp cannot figure out what the big fuss is about and why they should care about the novel. Now, there's a reason why all this is relevant to the film: had Peter Jackson gone to far either way the film would have fallen apart. Appeal to much to the fan-base and you loose the general movie-goer. Appeal to much to the movie-goer, and you'll lose the fan-base. So when the fan base learned of Peter Jackson's decision to film all three films at once, an unprecedented move in movie history, most of us really wanted it to be good but were just simply afraid. We've already been burnt. Would it be so bad that it would alienate both fan base and those who are just looking for a good movie? Not only does Peter Jackson's film work, it's glorious, beautiful, has all the myth and grandeur of the book. Jackson, a Tolkien fanatic, could have gotten so involved with bringing out the extremely detailed world Tolkien gave us that the pacing would suffer or we'd lose patience with all these obscure details which would alienate the regular movie goer. Not only does he not alienate the general movie goer, but he entices the fan base so much they can't help but fall in love with his vision of Tolkien's world. The only real flaw is how rushed first section of the movie is. Although I can understand cutting the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the way they handled getting the hobbits out of the Shire was unacceptable. There is not that sense of camaraderie between the Hobbits that there is in the book, there is no "conspiracy," and Merry and Pippin just join without any questioning from Sam and Frodo. While Jackson does a good job at building the Hobbits' characters and establishing their personalities, I couldn't come up with a good reason why Frodo and Sam would just let Merry and Pippin join them. The Prancing Pony is worst. There is no questioning from the Hobbits about Aragorn proving himself, there is no scene about him asking them to trust him, and the whole sequence feels much too rushed. Sam only questions Aragorn while they're actually out of the inn and traveling. Thankfully, however, that is the only real flaw. The rest of the things the script changed (tightening Elrond's council, the expansion of Arwen, cutting Sam from the Galadriel mirror sequence, tempting Aragorn with the ring, etc) I can see why they did it for dramatic tension. I also liked the way they handled Elrond's council, because that could have ruined the movie like it did with Bakshi's. They had established and covered much of the material in that chapter elsewhere by means of voice-over prologue and actually showing the viewer what is happening (especially with the Isengard sequences), and as a result lessened the screentime of that scene and helping with the dramatics of it. As for the controversial expansion of Arwen, I tend to agree with the film makers in their decision to enlarge her role. By making her part of the Ford sequence it introduces the character and establishes her in the viewer's mind, and the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn is more fully explored. As for their romantic interlude in Rivendell, not only do I agree with that but think it should have been done in the book. Tolkien did not know who Strider was when he was first writing FELLOWSHIP, and did not go back and change the scenes to further explain the romance between Arwen and Aragorn, and by not including a scene in Rivendell to establish their love for one another lessens by far the impact of their union in Part III, and (for once) this romantic scene is actually an improvement on the book. As for her role in the Flight at the Ford, for the movie they made the right choice though the book is still preferable. In achieving the balance between fan base and the more causal fan, this film is a spectacular success. Making a movie out of a book the size of Fellowship, the fact is you will have to condense, tighten, rearrange, and make changes for dramatic tensions. The mediums are different, and you cannot have a direct translation from a book to a film. Despite of what they cut, the movie still clocks in at three hours, which is very generous. The real problem with this film, as others noted, is it's going to be a full two years before we finally get to watch THE RETURN OF THE KING. In the end, we get a movie that stays true to the SPIRIT of the book. This is what we Tolkien fans have long been waiting for. Thank you so much Peter Jackson and your cast and crew.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: All I have to say is no one better even try to go in and say this was a bad movie because they left all this out or added this. These people could have messed this movie up so bad but ya know what it turned out to be one of the best movies I have ever seen. The dwarves and Hobbits are short unlike in that dungeons and dragons movie. The Acting was great. They followed the book well enough. Sure they left stuff out but that movie is 3 hours as it is. If they had put everything in here it would have been a two day movie. I am 14 years old I read the hobbit in first grade and all the other books the next year. I have read all the books at least 18 times (no joke). And I thought this movie was great. This movie had such a potential just to bomb out and be horrific. Thats what I was expecting but it didn't happen and Im glad. This IS the best movie I've seen this year. Forget about Harry Potter! Go see Fellowship of the Ring!
Rating:
Summary: What an amazing film!
Review: Maybe, if you are one of those people that likes to read the book before the movie comes out, just maybe, you may be disappointed. But I couldn't be more happy, because I learned my lesson a long time ago.. ok... a month, and am not one of those people so, what do I think of the movie: Even if it came with the smells of the places it shows, it couldn't have been more "real". Peter Jackson and the special effects team that worked with him... Ok, EVERYONE!!!! They where all amazing. Trully magnificent. But, warning... The movie might be a little slow and may lack a some character development. But that always happens when fans make the movies. They already know them, so they don't notice when something is missing. If you feel like something's missing buy the book after the movie, read it, and go watch the movie again, and again, and again, and again.... Notice the scenary, simply breathtaking. Even the "ugly" places are fantastic. And the special effects... Well, if I start I'll never end. I think that only two or three times you can actually say you remember being at a movie theater or notice something doesn't look "real" enough. And that my friends its not easy to do in movies this days. Anyway, go watch the movie. You will not regret it. And remember it's a trilogy... that means there's more to come. I noticed some people at the theater saying, "That's it!?" Well, it's not. Although, I think there is no point in waiting a year to see the next one if it's already been made. Well, do not listen to the bad reviews. They might know what they're talking about, but Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is just too good a movie to miss. And believe me, if you wait 'til this movie gets to your favorite video store to see it, you will regret it. Theater vs. Video... IT WILL NEVER BE THE SAME!
Rating:
Summary: The best sofisticated graphic!
Review: This movie will be one of nominated masterpieces in the Academy Award. In particular, the graphic of monster and background view such as mountain or snow rocks are really beautiful. Although this movie's running time is so long about 3 hours, you cannot breathe. Unlike Harry Potter, this "the Lord of the Rings will make a variety of people get impressed. The last part of the story, I cried. Everyone cried in the theater. What I want to improve it is only to take more time to show Liv Tyler. She is really beautiful. But I only could see her for 15 miniutes.
Rating: 
Summary: Bring Reasonable Expectations
Review: I believe that J.R.R. Tolkien's, "The Hobbit", together with these three books adapted for film, are some of the best writing that was done in the 20th Century. I even went back and read, "The Silmarillion", which is frustratingly complex, and reads as though written by an entirely different author. I offer these thoughts. 1. No film with any amount of special effects could bring any of these books to the screen. If you were to read this first installment portrayed as a movie out loud, it would take about 40 hours. If you have read any of the books you know how much material they contain. So even with a running time of 2 minutes shy of 3 hours, the story cannot be adequately covered. 2. There is no other special effects company with the track record of Industrial Light And Magic. Whether you consider, "Forrest Gump", "The Perfect Storm", the 4 Star Wars Films, or any of the others movies that have been awarded nearly 24 Oscars for their skill at making the impossible real, they still are the best. They did not do this film, and while New Zealand is a magnificent country to look at, and there were instances of effects that were well done, overall the work was not up to the level the film demanded and deserved. Items as simple as the height differentials between the characters. Whenever the camera pulls back, they usually substituted children for the adult actors. Children do not move like adults, and this is repeatedly apparent. When models either physical or computer generated are weak, they are rushed by the audience as they cannot be focused on for more than a moment without loosing their ability to convince. What is a dramatic camera move the first few times, rapidly becomes a cover for money that was not spent. 3. I was also a bit surprised by the level of graphic violence. The younger kids in the theater were covering eyes and ears, hopping into parent's laps, and occasionally stepping out of the theater. The swordplay includes dismemberment, and decapitations; the PG 13 is a good guide. 4. "The Hobbit", is the back-story for this entire trilogy, why they did not make it a four-movie experience is beyond me. If you have not read, "The Hobbit", you will be thoroughly confused even with the narration that tries to fill in enough history so this installment can be followed. The entire story of the ring begins with Bilbo and Golem, their cameos, and in the case of the latter character an extremely brief cameo; literally make no sense without, "The Hobbit", as background. 5. If you treasure Middle Earth as you have created it in your mind, there is no film that will match your imagination. This is one classic tale that should not have been put on the screen in this form, or perhaps at all. This movie is too long, and of too little substance as they try to narrate the book that came before, and present a modified storyline of this book. I do not think I will be going to the theater for next year's installment.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible Journey
Review: This was a mental journey that held me totally captive for three hours. The characters, the scenery - one wild ride. Loved it!
Rating:
Summary: Brings back memories
Review: I read the trilogy when i was around 12 or 13, and digged the fantasy fiction scene at that time. But it's been a long time - at least 12 years - since I've much thought about this book & the trilogy. Reading it was, in itself, a seeming lifetime of experience. Now i'm thirty-something and I didn't even know this movie was coming out until a week or two ago! I've just returned from seeing the movie, and oh my goodness, it was really amazing. It brought back deep-rooted memories of the emotions I had when I was reading the book all those years ago. The emotions about ringwraiths, elves, orcs, men, and hobbits, (the result of Mr. T's tireless descriptions of each race) and the time in the caves and when the fellowship broke up, and the ring's psychological effect on people. And always the sense of Frodo and Gandalf (separately) getting into, and out of, one impossible situation after another. I was deeply stirred by the movie, as if i'd remembered a forgotton part of my childhood... Sure, there will be those fanatics out there who think they would be able to direct a better, more accurate movie and that this wasn't the same or that wasn't the same blah blah blah. But in the film's three hours, the plot was more or less intact and the spirit of the film was the same as the spirit of the book. There's something for everyone in this movie. For the people who have read the book, there's a lot they can pick up on that are glossed over and not well-explained (on purpose?) in the movie. For the average movie-goer, there's decent action and a plot that can be understood - destroy the ring before the big bad guy gets a hold of it. For the complete [novice], there's some incredible scenery and unbelievable aerial shots of it. And for the fanatic, there's enough to complain about to satisfy his superior and well-developed ego. Is this the greatest movie ever made? No. Is it the best escapism entertainment around lately? Yes. Go see it and live another life for a few hours. It was SO...MUCH...FUN!!!!
|
