Rating: 
Summary: Dumbstruck. I'd give it 6 stars if possible.
Review: The last few years have been a dark age for motion pictures. I like art-house and independent flicks, but I'm shallow enough to admit I love a good, old-fashioned multi-million dollar spectacle. Hollywood has spent the money over the past few years, but without any of the quality or genius required to make a movie great.All that changed with Fellowship of the Ring. With a modest budget (still the GNP of a small country) Peter Jackson has made one of the most incredible, perhaps THE most incredible movie I have ever seen. This movie is so incredible in fact, that it makes me curse all of the mediocre ones I've tolerated over the past few years and despise all the really crappy ones. Granted, I did read the books, but I've always thought the books had some problems. Yes I know, I speak sacrelige, but the books get bogged down in exposition and backstory and page after page of tedious poetry and songs and some of the characters seem out of place or inconsistent. Overall it's one of the greatest works of the 20th century, but it was difficult for me to get into because of the pacing. As if answering my prayers, Jackson has completely ommitted all of the things I considered tedious and has given us the story itself, free of warts, and with such remarkable skill and power that I sat like a little kid through all three hours, then wanted to see it again. I can't remember loving a movie, truly LOVING it, like this one since Star Wars. I told a friend it was the unexpected Star Wars experience of my adult life. Jackson has captured each character flawlessly and with all the grace and respect they deserve. His eye and attention for detail shows a true respect for the work. All of the ommitted details and scenes shows that Jackson knows what is truly essential to the tale... and what is not. Don't be fooled. This is not a three hour SFX extravaganza. It's a story of hope, courage, loyalty and honor like none that have come before. SFX will get you the quick buck, but it's those other things that will make this movie timeless. It's almost too much to hope that all three movies will be this incredible, but after all the crap we, the paying audience, have been shelled with over the years, we deserve something this good.
Rating: 
Summary: Lord of the Blue Screens
Review: Lord of the Rings, though not nearly one of my personal favourites, is certainly one of the most important English language books of the twentieth century. It was a great shame to see that Peter Jackson's film version missed the soul of the novel and failed to convey Tolkien's rich fantasy world of Middle Earth. For anyone who has read the books, the film version comes across as a pale and bare bones translation - omitting some of the very best parts, and getting most of the book's atmosphere completely wrong. For instance, in the scene where Frodo becomes aware that Gollum is following the fellowship we actually see Gollum. In the book, Gollum is merely hinted at by the sound of his bare feet slapping on the cold stone floor. The Ring Wraiths, though quite good in the film, are not nearly close to the pathetic, blind, sniffing creatures twisted by evil that they are in the novel. To highlight all of the discrepencies between book and film would be both time consuming and pointless. Suffice it to say, however, that in omitting or changing so much of the book, Peter Jackson has failed to capture the true atmosphere of Middle Earth. His film seems more like any other Dungeons and Dragons world than Tolkien's fully realised one.
The usage of CGI was far too frequent and noticeable. The sweeping, blurred, battlescene at the start of the film hardly compares to other film's battlescenes (such as Ran, Kagemusha, Waterloo, and so on) where no computer enhanced imagery was used. There were also some laughably inept moments of CGI (watch for the lack of orc bodies after the fellowship escape the Dwarf's tomb, and then the hilarious shot of the party running along without their upper bodies moving. The effects standard here made me think of a Playstation game's graphics).
On the plus side, the film was fairly well cast. The inclusion of Sean Bean and the legendary Christopher Lee added a lot of class to the film. Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn was also quite good, though Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett seemed to be wasted as Elrond and Galadriel. Legalos and Gimli also had next to nothing to do other than prattle or prance on like Dwarven and Elven cliches.
It seems a shame that Jackson's hamfisted direction, and the ever present (and thoroughly mediocre) soundtrack squandered an excellent opportunity for a classic film. Though entertaining, the film never reached the heights that it should have. See the Ralph Bakshi animated version instead.
Rating:
Summary: THE DARK CRYSTAL STILL RULES!
Review: I went and saw this movie twice. The second time was to give
this film a second chance. This is supposed to be the greatest
fantasy story ever told, but after watching this thing twice I
have come to the conclusion that J.R.R. TOLKIEN's stories are
overrated. The reviewers who have claimed this the "Greatest
movie ever made" were obviously "smoking weed" when they saw this
movie. Peter Jackson needs to go back to film school and learn
about character developement, which there was little of in this
film. Jackson also overrelied on CGI ,when old-fashioned special
effects would have looked more realistic. The music score was okay, but was too repetitive. People have been raving about how
this film is such a great fantasy adventure. I found it to be a
cross between a halloween horror flick and a computer video game.
If you really want to see an original, true fantasy film, go buy
a copy of THE DARK CRYSTAL. That movie took you into a realistic
fantasy world with an excellent story. It was made 20 years ago,
but it looks 100 times better than this Lord of the Rings movie!
Rating:
Summary: Loving the Lord
Review: 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' is the greatest movie I have EVER seen! It was so unbelievably well done, that I went back to the theaters to see it a total of four times. Each time, I was equally as excited as I was the first time I saw the movie. Every about it is wonderful! All of the actors do a brilliant job, not a single one lags. The sets and locations are breathtaking to see. The plot and characters are to DIE for (cute, too!)! I just can't get enough of it! Don't let the almost three hour time limit deter you, for there isn't a single break in the flow of the story. You don't notice that so much time is passing because you become so drawn into the world of Middle-Earth. I have read the book as well and though certain things here and there are a bit different in the movie, the spirit is intact as well as the storyline. Peter Jackson and his team did a fabulous job bringing such a beloved story to the big screen. It's beautiful, intelligent, encompassing...and, well, the GREATEST movie I have EVER seen!!!
Rating:
Summary: A spectacular, resounding triumph
Review: A spectacular triumph
I waited so long for this movie to come out, that getting closer to the day, I started to fear that I had built it up into something that consummation could not possibly fulfill. But when I finally saw it, my fears were allayed once and for all. This adaptation is not quite flawless, but there are so many exquisite things about this film, they more than make up for distracting omissions. The depiction of the Shire is wonderful, and the interaction between the main characters truly heart-warming. In my opinion the best acting job (which is saying a lot in this superbly-acted film) is by Ian Holm as Bilbo. And I refuse to believe that Ian McKellen is in this film. Clearly, they somehow got Gandalf to play the role of Gandalf. The flight from the Shire and the subsequent trek to Rivendell end up painfully abbreviated; particularly as Merry and Pippin are depicted as just bumping into Frodo and Sam quite by chance, whereas in the book it's clear that they know what he's up to and their joining of the company is premeditated. But this I can chalk up as a necessary evil; they do, after all, have to get to the good stuff. I can't believe so many people are even mentioning Tom Bombadil in their review of this film. Did you honestly feel his absence? Sure, he's a fun subplot in the book, but there's no way to make him work cinematically. There seems to be a time problem right around the escape from the Shire, too: clearly not as much time as in the book has elapsed between Gandalf's exit and the hobbits' escape, but there seems to be an internal inconsistency in the seeming simultaneity of Gandalf's and the hobbits' leave of the Shire and all the extensive traveling Gandalf obviously has to do before meeting up with them again at Rivendell. Ah, well. I must confess I was a trifle disappointed in Aragorn; low-key is certainly apropos, but Viggo Mortensen just seems to deadpan a few too many lines. The visual creativity in portraying Frodo's visions when he puts on the ring; i.e. at the Prancing Pony and at Weathertop are fantastic; one of the things that really makes this film and gives it is haunting sense of danger and threatening evil. I believe PJ & co. couldn't have done any better than they did with the character of Arwen. In the book she scarcely appears, and it's completely logical for them to conflate her role with that of Glorfindel. A single movie can only have so many characters, after all. Since Aragorn ends up marrying her at the end of the saga (sorry for the spoiler for all you uninitiated), you obviously have to see more of her than the book has. Liv Tyler's portrayal is enchanting and lithe, and Elvish just sounds like so much sweet milk on her lips. If you think about it, it's obvious that portraying Saruman explicitly instead of implied as the book does is cinematically absolutely necessary. From Gandalf's recounting at the Council of Elrond in the book, you find out what happened, but I think it's just as well to show it as part of the narrative instead of in flashback. I think it worked quite well. One thing that felt sorely missing was the re-forging of Narsil-they don't even mention it! It is, after all, a crucial thematic element. I wonder if they'll reveal it later down the road somehow. Sean Bean's Boromir is excellent, as is John Rhys-Davies' Gimli. I just love Gimli. He's just happy as long as there are orc-necks to hew. The action scenes are phenomenal; like the special effects, truly unlike anything I've ever seen before. Visceral, kinetic, and with a palpable sense of peril, they speak of Peter Jackson's filmmaking talents like so many other aspects of this movie. The cave troll, wow! Then the Balrog, HOLY MACKEREL! Like so many others have already said, the real sense of emotion and passion is one of the things that really drives this movie, maybe even *the* thing. The filmmaking techniques, acting, and overall screenplay contribute to this effect. Cate Blanchett's Galadriel is quite good; particularly in the scene where they first meet. The sense that the book gives so well that she's gazing into your soul is achieved wonderfully. The mirror scene is perhaps a bit heavy-handed, but still okay. Another thing they definitely should have shown (it would have taken only a minute of screen time) is the various gifts that Galadriel gave to the members of the Fellowship, besides the vial with the light of Earendil in it. You do see the leaf-clasps on their cloaks, but not her giving it to them. And obviously the elvish rope Sam gets figures in kinda importantly down the road. Also missing that would have been nice to see if Gimli's reaction to actually meeting Galadriel and subsequent one-eighty in his attitude towards her and elves in general. It's important for his character, and I felt the loss. Oh man, the Argonnath on the river Anduin-totally convincing! You totally buy that those are real statues that are part of the landscape. Along with many other Oscars it deserves, it'll be a crime if this doesn't get at least nominated for cinematography. The ending, like everything else in this film, is extremely effective. Of course they had to show the very first part of the Two Towers, because, well, it's just natural that way. I expected it. All that was left wanting were the words "Minas Tirith shall not fall!" from Aragorn as his last words before Boromir dies. I guess they never refer to Minas Tirith by name in the movie, though. I do believe this may indeed be better than Star Wars, and I congratulate and effusively praise PJ and crew for pulling this off so wonderfully. Now begins the long wait for The Two Towers... Lord have mercy.
Rating:
Summary: The best movie in the Universe!
Review: I was left speechless and in awe. I had just completed the beautiful, marvellous book by J.R.R Tolkien when I saw Lord of the Rings 1 and there are no words to describe it and give it justice. I am in love with Elijah Wood whose acting was superb. Such as was the rest of the cast. I am saying this from the point of view of someone who has rea dit and also a child. When they say it isn't fr under 8's they really mean it. There are some pertrifying parts including Black Riders and Mines of Moria. I cried several times through this fantastic film and for good reason. I am seeing it for a third time very soon and the otehr two tiems I saw it, not one bit of charm was lost. I'm gabbling because I lovd it s much. It keeps very close to the book and Sam and Frodo's bond is not lsot, if any fans are worrying. There is some beautiful, heart-breaking, mind-blowing, brain-boggling, truly amazing work here and every actor/actress slips into their role like a glove and you'd never be able to tell the difference. But don't belive me, please, go and see it for yourself and be totally amazed. I reccomend it to people who like fantasy and for people over 10. Younger children would not find this enjoyable and may get lost in some of the plot. And, do me a favour, remember the names! Most of my friends could not remember a single one. But it is the best movie in the entire universe, I promise you!
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
Review: I saw this movie in an older theater. Thinking that I knew the stories well, I wouldn't need the newer IMAX screen. I was both right and wrong. The theater was alright, the movie showed well, but the glamour and excitement would have been more if it was on the bigger screen. The movie itself was very compelling and well scripted. My son and husband were very dissappointed at the ending. They said it left them hanging. This movie will bother them until they see the next one and know the ending. I just hope it is as well written and acted as Fellowship of the Ring.
Rating:
Summary: even better the 2nd time
Review: it was weird for me when I first walked out of the theatre I was a little disapointed thought I liked it then I went over the movie again in my mind and liked it even more the more I thought about it the more I liked it then I was it a 2nd time and loved it I enjoyed evrey scene.
They may have changed key scenes but their wasn't much they could have done it was 3 hours long already so they don't need to leangthen it! I found the movie much funnier than the book to (though I'm not done the book) especially merry and pipen! I'm very glad they didn't include the singing the books had and they shortened the council of elrond though they included many of the stories told there before it happened. The only thing I wish they did diffrent would be to make the ringwraith chase scene more accurate
Rating:
Summary: The best movie I have yet seen
Review: Years in the making by people devoted to utter quality, Tolkien's beloved, multilayered epic is THE fantasy, the fantasy upon which every fantasy written since then is based! And many are recognizing that the sheer scope and quality of this movie is enough to take your breath away. After a prologue giving us insights into how the Ring came to be and how it came into Bilbo's hands, we get to see the exquisite village of Hobbiton and glimpses of the hobbits' peaceful existance, where the angelic wizard (by angelic I mean he really is, not that he acts like one) Gandalf arrives for Bilbo Baggins' eleventy-first birthday party. Bilbo's party goes off with a few hitches -- the most major of which is when he uses his magical Ring to vanish from the party. Gandalf manages to convince Bilbo -- whose personality is being swamped by the Ring -- to leave it in young cousin Frodo's keeping. He becomes convinced that it is the One Ring, the pure evil force of the Dark Lord Sauron. And now the Nazgul (Black Riders) arrive in the Shire, hunting for the hobbit carrying the Ring. Frodo leaves the Shire with his faithful gardener and friend Samwise Gamgee, and they also end up picking up his cousins Merry and Pippin along the way. But fun and games are not in the workings for the hobbits -- Frodo is nearly killed in a confrontation with the Black Riders, on their way to Bree. In the inn there, they encounter a mysterious stranger named Strider. Strider takes them to the Elvish citadel of Rivendell, where it is decided that the Ring must be destroyed in the distant, hellish land of Mordor. Frodo volunteers to take the Ring -- but he has only the faintest idea of the dangers, both from the evil creatures and from within the Fellowship that accompanies, that he will have to face... The special effects are overwhelming - an avalanche, a horde of hideously realistic orcs, the rock-faced cave troll that almost squishes Sam, the slippery tentacles of the Watcher in the Water, the "fiery letters" reflected on Frodo's face, Gandalf's horrific confrontation with the monstrous "fire and darkness" Balrog, as the bridge collapses under them. Not all the special effects show -- the hobbits are shrunken down to about four feet tall using special effects, as is Gimli the dwarf. But it's all integral to the plot. Gollum is glimpsed only briefly, but creepily. Only a few of the FX fall flat, like Gwahir the eagle; and the weird swoop-in scene to Saruman on Isengard. Also one shot of Legolas leaping from off of the cave troll. Elijah Wood appears to just EMBODY Frodo, with his wide eyes and slenderer build than the other hobbits; his luminous face will make your heart bleed or your eyes glow, depending on what is happening to Frodo. Sean Astin looks solid and dependable, just how Sam should look; he manages to make Sam loyal and caring for Frodo without making him look dumb or servile. Pippin and Merry star as mild comic relief; by the end of the movie, they are somewhat more mature. Ian McKellen is astoundingly good as Gandalf, mixing Gandalf's sternness and latent power with a sense of humor and a tendency to bump his head; Christopher Lee throws everything into the sinister Saruman. I groaned when I heard that Viggo Mortenson would play Aragorn and Liv Tyler would play Arwen, but they both throw their hearts into it, including the most romantic scene I have ever seen in a movie. You cannot go wrong with John Rhys-Davies, who plays the endearingly crabby Gimli. Sean Bean takes the breath away as Boromir, a man tormented with love for his city and his people, and the desire to use the Ring to save them. His final scene is one of the most touching ones ever shot on film. Orlando Bloom is in a breakout role as elven archer-prince Legolas, where he embodies the right masculine elvishness for the role mingled with some of the best fight scenes since "Phantom Menace." The lighting is astounding good -- sinister and darker for scenes with evil creatures, gritty for travelling scenes, warm for scenes in the Shire, paler and luminous for scenes in Lothlorian. The costumes are great -- mudstained and worn for Aragorn, simple and comfy for the hobbits, fancier but serviceable for Boromir and Legolas (well, they ARE princes!) and more floaty-looking, gauzy gowns for Arwen and Galadriel, as well as Arwen's sleek, immaculate riding outfit. Sets are also great, from the simple earthy stuff of the Shire to the elegant sleekness of the Elves' places, to the decaying former splendor of Moria. The script varies in places from the books, sometimes to provide humor (like Aragorn whacking Pippin in the head with an apple). But this human is often dampened with a follow-up of grimness or fear. For all the fuss about Arwen and orc sidekick Lurtz, neither is really on for long. And often an addition is made to the preexisting material: Frodo's frequent glimpses of the Eye, for example. This is NOT a movie to take children to. Though there is one very low-key kiss and no profanity, there is plenty of violence (very little blood); also, there are some hair-raising scenes, including Galadriel and Bilbo's temptations, Frodo's brushes with the Eye of Sauron, glimpses of torture (but not what happens), and seeing the Ringwraiths both with their black cloaks -- and without. And even when the violence is mild, it can still be disturbing: We don't see Frodo stabbed by a Nazgul, but his agonized expression, choked up "Sam..." and the following scenes where he struggles to survive are very affecting. Peter Jackson clearly poured heart and soul into this film. It is perhaps one of the best ever made. See it. Now.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent "alternative" film
Review: This is the only movie I've gone to see twice in a theater and I plan to go at least two more times. My only complaint is the volume - my ears were ringing after each showing. But that's mainly the theater's fault because when I buy the movie I will be able to control the volume myself. Other than that, LOTR was one of the best book adaptations I've ever seen. "Gone With the Wind" and "The Princess Bride" are my other two favorite movies-from-books. What I loved about LOTR was that everything seemed just the way I had it pictured in my head, Gandalf, the Hobbits, etc. were perfect and I found the cinematography excellent. Those who complain about the movie's length or missing scenes need to remember that it is absolutely impossible to reproduce an author's words on the big screen. Artistic visions differ and liberties must be taken; only the important parts of the story need to be in the script. I thought the prologue in the beginning was very helpful to those who've never read the books, or maybe have forgotten the story.
Also I like the fact that this is a "grown-up" movie and not a water-downed family version from the Evil Empire. This is an excellent movie for those who like adult fantasy-adventure epics, and if you know you don't like that genre, don't see it and don't complain. This is a refreshing alternative to the mainstream Hollywood pestilence that plagues our theaters under the guise of "teen romance comedy", etc. LOTR is an example of what superior filmmaking can be. My only peeve is that is will be ignored by the Academy because of it's "fantasy" label. It would certainly win Best Picture in my book.
|
