Rating: 
Summary: Great Cast, Great Look
Review: As a Tolkein geek since about age six, I was, overall, impressed by Peter Jackson's take on Lord of the Rings. Most of what he did I liked a great deal. There was only one thing I REALLY DIDN'T like: his interpretation of Galadriel and the scene at her mirror, which Jackson turned into some _Craft_-like evil witch nonsense. I always imagined Galadriel's reflections on what would happen if she took the one ring to be much quieter in tone, with almost a wry self-knowledge. I had expected this would be conveyed with acting rather than FX, and I found that the way it was done diminished the power of the scene.If the movie had a general fault it was that certain things were just overblown. It was almost as if Jackson felt he had to point out significant events, rather than let them point themselves out. Some of the lingering, slow motion went on too long. Both times Frodo was wounded, Boromir's death and Sam's near drowning stick out for me as places where I thought the pace lagged and the story verged on the melodramatic. There were also a few places where Jackson inserted action that I definitely hadn't imagined, which gave the whole a kind of video game feel. I thought at first that this represented the difference between a woman's take on Tolkein;'s work and a "guy's" -- probably 75% of the theatre audience was male -- but my husband agreed with me, so I don't know. Just a dfference in vision, I guess. Some of the cuts and substitutions, though necessary, bothered me. I missed the journey through the Shire. I REALLY missed Tom Bombadil, and I'm unsure about the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel. The action between Bilbo's party and the arrival at Rivendell seemed rushed. I think the fact that there were 15 years or so between Frodo's inheritance of the ring and his leaving the Shire was an important one, and Jackson just ignored it. I also think that the "conspiracy" between Merry, Pippin and Sam was a major contribution both to the story and to the three younger Hobbits' characters, and I was sorry that it wasn't included. As Jackson portrayed it, Merry and Pippin ended up going along to Bree and farther completely by accident and that didn't work so well for me. On the plus side: this movie looked FANTASTIC! Some of the scenes were obviously built from Tolkein's own drawings. The Shire, the mines of Moria, the Pillars of the Kings all were unbelievably real. I can't say enough about how incredible the look was; it just blew me away, which doesn't happen often. The cast was also incredible. The only one who didn't really meet my expectations was, surprsingly, Christopher Lee; I expected Saruman to be more suave and oily. The rest were phenomenal, though, particularly Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) and Ian McKellen (Gandalf). I also thought Elijah Wood did a fine job showing Frodo's transformation from a rather happy-go-lucky hobbit to one forced by circumstance to carry an incredible burden. I was consistently amazed when I realised that none of these actors was a little person, but that all the size differences were done with CG. The CG environments were also amazing; if this movie doesn't win at least one award I'll be shocked. _Fellowship of the Ring_ kept me on the edge of my seat for its entire three hours. (I would actually give it four and a half stars if I could.) I think it will stand the scrutiny of most exacting Tolkein afficianados. Go see it.
Rating: 
Summary: For Tolkien fans only?
Review: Many of the comments that will be posted here will be from lifelong devotees of the 'Lord of the Rings' books, attesting to whether the film succeeds in recreating characters, places and events they have read a hundred times over. But what about the rest of us, those who have somehow managed to survive adolescence without the help of Tolkien's epic goblindegook? Is there anything for us to enjoy? Well, it often looks beautiful, more so when it concentrates on New Zealand's unexpectedly wondrous and vast landscapes, less so when it relies on CGI effects which, though superior to those in 'Harry Potter', still look like effects. There are some quite breathtakingly artful compositions, often resembling Pre-Raphaelite paintings of Arthurian subject matter, such as the hazy, dawnpink scene when Frodo and chums boat away from Cate Blanchett. There is a willingness (if not ability) to be humorous that is refreshing. Peter Jackson, to his eternal credit, avoids one of two cardinal sins of the 'historical' epic: pace. Almost without exception, the epic is always ground down to an enervatingly slow pace, as much to show off the results of a big budget (sets, masses of men etc.) as to create an appropriately solemn atmosphere. Here enormous battles and endless sets flash be in tantalising seconds; Jackson exhaustively uses as many different, arresting camera angles and movements and editing techniques to vary the cinematography and keep the film moving as briskly as possible. Sadly, he is defeated by the second cardinal sin of the 'historical' epic: script. There's nothing he can do with the risible, cod-medieval dialogue and monologues that destroy all credibility ('And I with mine axe!' 'But we shall meet Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the glade of Ebeneezer, mine loyal vassal' etc.). He can't hide the fact that every plot development - quest, picaresque gathering of friends, wise Obi-Goondolph-Kenobi guide, hero nearly dying, idyllic period of recuperation etc. - has been done to death a thousand times over the millenia, most notably in 'Star Wars'. He can't cover over the confusing and too-speedy opening exposition and explanation of the quest's context, which made the plot (for me) often mystifying, and can alienate anyone who hasn't read the book. He can't quite avoid the pitfall of unintentional humour: when one character is stabbed with three arrows he continues to fight the hordes bravely, I was irresistably reminded of 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and the scene where Arthur lops off every limb of a knight who gamely refuses to give in. On the other hand, the Darth Maul/Golem figure who becomes the ultimate tool of the enemy, suggests Maori culture, which in the context of the New Zealand locations is interesting; and, combined with the sly visual sublimation of taboo dsire in this homosocial fellowship (all these towering constructions and statues; all those ravines, pits and passages), suggests that Jackson has lost none of his sardonic subversiveness. In summary: 'Fellowship' is an Arthurian/Narnian/Robin Hoodian/Wagnerian hodgepodge with Ray Harryhausen-type monsters. These latter, including a 'Shrek'-lookalike ogre, are more nostalgically endearing than frightening.
Rating:
Summary: My Preciousssss.... The Journey Begins...
Review: ... but won't end for a couple years. THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is the first in the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. It took to the screen in an incredible production filled with majesty, efficiency and respect. The production itself is nothing short of gorgeous from the obvious Special Effects ("THE BALROG", a being with a heart of fire) to the not-so-obvious effects (Frodo-Elijah Wood seen half as tall Gandalf-Ian McKellen)to the greatest effect of all, the unique and beautiful scenery of New Zealand. All over, this film could probably have not been made until now as technology opens up our minds to new ways of approcahing difficult scenes. The film is surprisingly efficient, considering the 3 hour running time. There is rarely any wasted film, everything helping to add even more value to the film. the film adaption is surprisingly accurate to the complex novel and like the HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERERS STONE film from earlier in the year, provides the only stumbling block along the way. The LORD OF THE RINGS novels are not structured like any Hollywood film. Like the POTTER film, secondary character development suffers. Here character is built more from the movie-goers previous movie experiences than through the compressed for time filmmaking. "He plays the Han Solo-type role", "He's like Spock" or "that one's the same as Yoda" are signs of character recognition. Like the novel, the book ends in an anti-climatic point... There is no Death Star destruction to let the viewer know that this specific episode has come to an end... We'll have to wait 2 more movies for any decisive end to this. That is a risk in itself. All in all, it is a tremendous achievement covered with 'cool'. From the battle with the Balrog (made all the more anxious by a decaying stairwell), to a wall of water taking out several evil 'dark riders' to the Elf Legolas with his rapid fire bow and arrow control, the film is filled with great imagery. I saw the film on an IMAX screen which didn't result in a more pleasant experience. In fact, it made me long for teh DVD version so I could take in more of the film. The large image left me with sensory overload... That is a testament to the accomplishment. Great fun!
Rating: 
Summary: Awe-struck
Review: I'm still reeling from this film! The performances, costuming, props and special effects, direction, and cinematography are astounding. There were times whilst viewing this film when I was on the edge of my seat or grabbing my seat to hold on; times when my heart was pounding; times when I was moved to shed a tear by either sadness or greatness. The movie captures every part of human emotions, wraps them all up, and unleashes them at the viewer at an almost rapid pace; which can, at times, be a bit too much. The Fellowship Of The Ring is a very strong, very powerful, visually stunning, and entirely emotive film. And I give top marks to WETA for the highly notable achievement of creating a thoroughly credible height ratio effect for the Hobbits and Dwarves in regards to the taller races of Middle-earth. Brilliant! However, as much as I was stunned by this film, the screenplay and adaptions were absolute rubbish! In my opinion, Mrs. Jackson and anyone who worked with her should be fed to the Balrog, along with Peter Jackson himself for allowing it. Their were changes in characters and character, aspirations, and events. Tolkien's dialogue was rarely followed. Some reviewers say this doesn't deter from the story. It does deter from the story! That's exactly what it does. How difficult is it to follow a story and dialogue that has already been written? Editing is one thing and is understandable when approaching a big screen adaptation with time constraints, but arrant changes to a story are not. This I find unforgivable. In addition, no Fatty Bolger playing up appearances in Frodo's new house in Buckland; no Willow The Wisp; no Tom Bombadil; no Barrow-wights; no Rhadaghast The Brown, and very little attention payed to the Hobbits' stealth from and cat and mouse games with the Black Riders in The Shire. In addition, very little of Tolkien's dialogue was covered. The Fellowship Of The Ring is mainly dialogue, and takes place mainly in The Shire. What happened to Peter Jackson's boasting about how closely he was going to follow Tolkien's story? With all its faults, Ralph Bakshi's film follows Tolkien's story and dialogue more closely than Jackson's version does! Jackson is either pandering to his own ego (or his wife's), or just trying to make the film(s) appeal to more people than just Tolkien fans; and the only reason for the latter would be money. Aside from the above criticism, I was very annoyed by WETA's cheesy computer-generated Cave Troll and Balrog. This garbage belongs in a video game, not an important epic film. What ever happened to employing the talents of real artists like Ray Harryhausen or Jim Henson's Creature Shop? Is it just me, or are today's film makers relying too heavily on computer-generated effects, and using the words "can't be done" or "not within the budget" as a scape-goat to seeking alternative ways of creating effects, like the filmmakers of old had to do? However all scrutinising aside, The Fellowship Of The Ring is an overwhelming cinematic experience, and one which should not be missed by anyone; with the exception of pre-teens, to whom this film will only terrorise. This is a tremendous Christmas present, and I thank Peter Jackson and everyone involved in its creation for it. It's difficult to believe that there are two more films of this calibre to follow. I look forward to their release, as well as a few more viewings of The Fellowship Of The Ring. In closing I'd just like to say that Tolkien fans have still not been given a definitive screen version of The Lord Of The Rings. In fact, the only way I believe it would be possible to remain faithful to Tolkien's story and (even edited) dialogue, would be to make a complete mini-series for non-commercial television; basically, a visual accompaniment to the long BBC Radio production. Perhaps one day someone with enough integrity and who cares enough will.
Rating:
Summary: SPECTACULAR Film!!!
Review: "The Lord of the Rings" is nothing short of a benchmark in modern cinema. Everything about the film oozes quality, talent and intelligence. Unlike the typical Hollywood "Big Blockbuster of the Week," it isn't dumbed-down, cliched or sterile. Indeed, LotR seems to get almost everything right: action that is really exciting, breathtaking visuals, impressive acting across the board, genuine wit, engaging drama and even a smidgen of romance. Ignore the sniveling of the pathological Tolkien fans; Peter Jackson and company did a brilliant job of paring down the immense Lord of the Rings trilogy into a film of manageable length while keeping the essential spirit of the story intact. This is a film not just for fans of the books, or fantasy in general, but for anyone who can appreciate quality film-making. It was also great fun. The audience stood up and applauded at the end of the movie. Enough said.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie I have ever seen
Review: Wonderful, Fantastic, Beautiful scenery, Beautiful cinematography, good acting, spectacular special effects, a true piece of art. I could not believe it when it was over... I wanted to turn around and go see it again.
Rating:
Summary: A Spellbinding Cinematic Masterpiece
Review: As we pull up to the theater, the line stretches out into the parking lot. The people are filled with restless, nervous anticipation, talking quietly amongst themselves. Fortunately Dallas has arrived early and I find my place saved at the head of the line. The air almost crackles with the intensity, a murmur passes through the crowd when at last the doors are unlocked and the restless viewers begin to forge inside. Our tickets are purchased, our seats are found; eventually the trailers begin. The theater is packed, all 900 seats. After being plagued with Spiderman and a terrible Austen Powers spin-off, the screen fades to darkness. We shudder with a sudden thrill as the voice-over, the voice we would learn to acknowledge as that of Queen Galadriel, begins the story of the Ring, its forging in the Mountains of Doom, its empowerment by the Dark Lord... and its keepers. We are swept into a story unlike any other, a story of many characters and places, of much depth and insight; but also a story of elves and dwarves, humans and hobbits. A story that has earned itself rightfully the title of "book of the century." In the three hours that come about, we laugh, we cry, we are scared absolutely out of our wits. The time flies by without hesitation or fear, plunging ahead into Middle Earth with incredible aerial shots and stunning cinematography. The audience is in awe of the elves, terrified by the Cave Troll, grossed-out by the birth of an Orc from the depths of the ground itself; they gasp in fear as Gandalf is suddenly attacked by an unexpected enemy; they cheer when Arwen brings down the flood upon the dark riders; they draw back in surprise and sudden fear at the temptation of Galadriel. All breaths are drawn in as one when the enemy infiltrates the Prancing Pony, and let out in a roar when an Orc is defeated. And then, as the screen fades to black and the credits role, it begins. One clap here, another there, until it breaks forth into thundering applause. The audience who was wowed with Gladiator, who shunned The Patriot, who stood in awe of The Matrix, have discovered for the first time the spellbinding storytelling of Tolkien... and the absolute magic at the fingertips of the filmmakers. As I exit the theater, I hear many things... words such as "incredible," "awesome," "cool" ... and "Oscar." The words that will spread from lips into ears across the nation and send Lord of the Rings into a complete and total bock office success. But it is only later that the true test of the film begins; it endures in discussion over a late (very late!) luncheon at Chili's. All aspects are explored, from the hideousness of the Orcs to the angelic tendencies of the elves, even a character's intentional sacrifice for another. The Ring is deeply studied from every aspect, its character even more powerfully drawing than that of Frodo or Gandalf. All are in agreement -- that the film is a masterpiece. As we gather up our things and bid farewell, we leave with only one thought in mind... Tolkien would have approved.
Rating:
Summary: OUTSTANDING MOVIE
Review: (...) The Lord of the Rings is awesome. Visually is was amazing, such beautiful and intriguing landscapes. The effects were perfectly matched to the movie, nothing over the top or unbelievable, and the actors did a wonderful job of bringing their characters to life. My favorites were the hobbits Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, I couldn't get enough of them. I know some people are going to say it didn't follow the book exactly, but how could it. As far as the movie goes I couldn't be happier with it.
Rating:
Summary: The Wait is Over...and It Was Worth It!
Review: The first installment of "The Lord of the Rings" is quite simply an incredible accomplishment. Considering how difficult it would be to satisty people new to the story as well as people who have read the books multiple times, Peter Jackson should be given the keys to the kingdom. I won't get into the plot. If you've read the books, you know it; if you haven't, see the movie. I will say that the film succeeds on every level I can think of. You feel like you are really watching real people (and other creatures) in a real place. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. The costumes, acting, settings, props, weapons, language...everything is in place. Having said that, will "The Fellowship of the Ring" be all things to all people? No. I imagine some will think that too much has been left out and that too much attention has been placed on action. If you've read the books, I think you will agree that Jackson has kept the action moving much more than in the book. What Jackson has left out as far as details of the journey and character background _I_ think are enough to keep the film interesting without slowing it down. I think people will be talking about this film for a long, long time. I saw several groups of people standing around talking about the film after it was over. They all seemed to love it. The film will probably send more people to the book, which is great, since this is one of the great works not just of fantasy, but of 20th century literature. The film will almost certainly be nominated for many awards and deservedly so. This holiday season, treat yourself to a grand adventure.
Rating:
Summary: Best movie of the year, easy. Fantastic in every way.
Review: I have never seen such an engrossing film. Every character was not only believable but excelled even beyond my expectations. The story involves Frodo Baggins and his inheritance of a magic ring (by Bilbo Baggins who found the ring) forged by a dark Lord in a fiery mountain - Mt. Doom. Frodo's life is in constant danger and he must climb to the top of Mt. Doom and throw it into the fiery pit in order to destroy it. The dark Lord's spirit is drawn to the ring - searching for Frodo and his companions to claim it and use its power to send darkness throughout the entire of Middle-Earth. 3 other hobbits, a wizard named Gandalf, en Elf, a dwarf and 2 humans join Frodo as companions to destroy the ring and thus are given the title "Fellowship of the Ring." This movie was unbelieveably excellent in every way. The characters had immeasurable depth and the action sequences were some of the best I've seen in a long time. It uses alot of computer animation and it only complemented, rather than detracted from, the story. I found that I was taken into this world as much as the characters were and it felt like I was walking with them as they ventured throughout Middle-Earth. The monsters in the film are quite nasty and this is why the movie received a PG-13 rating - I wouldn't recommend young children seeing this movie. I will admit I've never read any of Tolkien's books but this movie has me very intrigued. The length of the film is 3 hours but you'd never know it - it felt like a 2 hour film or less! I cannot think of any drawbacks in this film - not a single thing. This movie is beyond excellent and will be an instant classic - it's a diamond in the rough.
|
