Rating: 
Summary: Caution! Not for the weak heart!
Review: I've really hate goodbyes esp. from gandalf & the Gondor Warrior (Sean Bean-The miserable on most of his films history). They did a goodjob! 3 hours heart pomping and I feel like standing in the middle of the theatre just to see the fellowship swashbuckling attitude give Sauron a bad name (he already was) and I didn't knew and most of us in the theatre were awww.....when it's going to go for another sequel. Jackson really do it so well. And There was a silence when gandalf fell with demon....I did see some of us are weeping in agony.....I can't stand this anymore. I need the sequel badly Jack!
Rating:
Summary: WHAT WAS THAT?
Review: I went to The Lord of the Rings with GREAT expectations. I had been waiting for months and months, and had been torturing everyone in my family and school with all the new info I got on it. I was a little afraid, though, having read so many reviews and seeing so many specials that I would know every scene to the movie. I expected to a see a masterpiece, an epic movie, awesome on all levels.I still don't know what I got. It was anything but what I expected. It was . . . better? I don't know how, but it was so different than I imagined - sometimes I (unfortunately) pick out all the lines an actor said wrong or all the scenes the director could have done better. Too, in a case like this, I look forward to scenes in the book, and when they are edited I am dissapointed. In many of my favorite movies I have that feeling "I LOVE this incredible movie!" But I didn't. After seeing the actors talk and all the reviews, nothing prepared me for this. It was more natural than I thought it would be. Something funny happened when it came on screen. I forgot about the book (yikes!), I forgot about crucial scences that actually caught me by surprise in the movie. I never thought an actor did a bad or even a good job, I just watched the realistic fantasy unfold with all the people (not characters) of Middle-Earth. It did not seem like a movie at all. I am sure you know what the basic plot is, but let me just sum it up. Frodo, a hobbit, inherits a ring from his odd cousin Bilbo. Bilbo's old friend and advisor, Gandalf the wizard, discovers that the ring is THE one and only ruler of Middle-Earth. It holds powers too horrible to wield. So, Frodo must embark on a journey first to Rivendell where he is joined by a fellowship of 9 (including him) and then to the only place where the ring can be destroyed, in the fires of Mount Doom. The scenery, obviously is incredible, I was SO sucked into it all. The movie is also wicked funny - It rips me apart when they put a hilarious line in a terrifying/sad scene (in a good way). For crying out loud, this movie is SCARY! At one point I jumped 10 feet into the air screaming, and my heart didn't stop thumping furiously for another 5 minutes. Another amazing element was the emotion. It was horribly sad on some parts (I actually cried in a fantasy movie!), and scenes like when Frodo gets stabbed tear up your heart with pity. As for the acting, it wasn't there. The flesh and blood, the PEOPLE in it were. Elijah Wood (Frodo) was so cute and perfect. Every line he said was thought out, true, and you could identify with him in even the smallest things. Ian McKellen (Gandalf) - I loved him! He could be such a funny wizard, with quaint friendships mixed with immense power. Viggo Mortenson (Aragorn) was such a subtle and hardened character. He does not let his pride get in his way, and his sharp eyes melt to softness when he speaks to Arwen. Speaking of Arwen, Liv Tyler was so good. She was gorgeous, a vision of light, who wasn't in the movie as much as everyone feared. In fact, she was so good, I kind of missed her! Cate Blanchette (Galadriel) was even more beautiful than when I had scene her in specials and pictures. Also, she was FREAKY! First she was scary, then terrifying, then kind and wise. Wow! Since we're speaking of elves, Hugo Weaving (Elrond) was wonderful. In his younger years he looked great, and it was so interesting seeing his distrust of men, considering he was half human. The hobbits. Ian Holm was a perfectly friendly and frightening Bilbo, and Sean Austin (Sam) was so wonderful. He was not especially bright, but he just had this love and loyalty for Frodo that no one could ever shake off. I really liked Merry, played by Dominic Monaghan. He was fun loving, but a fairly wise hobbit. And Billy Boid (Pippin) was great! He was suitably foolish and sometimes just watching his face made you laugh. As for the others, I'll begin with Sean Bean's portrayal of Boromir. And I'll end it there - he was so touching, proud, and pitiable I don't even want to think about it. Christopher Lee (Saruman) had THE voice and personality of Saruman. John Rhys-Davis was a rather funny and feisty dwarf. And finally, Orlando Bloom (HOT HOT HOT - Legolas) did a remarkable job. This "young" elf was so amazing. He was deadly in battle, he is so brave in the sight of most danger, and yet when the Balrog comes, the expression on his face is extremely alarming. He is the most scared of all of them (save Gandalf, who is preparing himself), for he knows well what a Balrog is. Orlando Bloom expresses his emotions through subtle and tender expressions. I don't know. See it yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Simply incredible!
Review: I caught the late night showing on opening day. Being one who has read the books dozens of times, I'd expected to be a little more critical of it than most people, but I was blown away. There were a few minor quibbles over minor changes, like the somewhat silly fight between Gandalf and Saruman, but there were NO complaints about casting or visual effects. I have never seen a more powerful representation of pure evil than this film's interpretations of Sauron, the Nazgul, and the Balrog. I would be FAR more terrified to meet one of those beings than of any villain in a traditional horror film! Kudos to Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, and Cate Blanchett for bringing their characters to life so powerfully. If they don't get at least Oscar Nominations, then I'll know once and for all that the Oscars aren't worth watching.
Rating:
Summary: Real Cool!
Review: This was a very good movie. It has alot of action at the begining. It is pretty violent. It is not gory. It is not scary. See this movie! It Rules!
Rating:
Summary: A different tale than the one told by Tolkien
Review: If you've read Tolkien's classic saga, you'll find yourself miffed at many of the critical changes and omissions. Nevertheless ... taken on its own, the movie is an exciting tale that's far more thrilling than Harry Potter. New Zealand's splendid landscape is a perfect setting for the movie - wide expanses of open plains, forbidding mountain ranges, beautiful rivers and valleys. The settings created by the filmmakers for other places in the book - Rivendell, Lothlorien (never named in the movie), and the mines of Moria - are equally compelling and beautifully crafted. Although the movie is almost three hours long, it never drags. The "fellowship of the ring" consists of nine members, and even within a three-hour movie, it is hard to do justice to the characterization of each of those nine. Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn are the most finely-drawn and compelling, with Sam Gamgee and Boromir close behind. Legolas, Gimli, Pippin, and Merry are supporting characters - they look exactly right for their parts, but the complex interplay that existed between them all in the book doesn't make it to the screen. Ian McClellan, who plays Gandalf, is completely believable as the gruff wizard, seen by the hobbits as simply the master of incredible fireworks, but actually an important leader in the fight against Sauron. The story's most critical "actor" is, of course, the Ring. Created by the evil Sauron, it would give tremendous power to whoever wields it - a power that ultimately corrupts. The message - that one cannot use an evil tool to accomplish good - is beautifully clear. To rid the world of this compelling evil, Frodo and the others set off on a quest to find the Cracks of Doom, where the ring was forged, and there destroy the ring. Many who are already evil seek the ring; others, once good, are corrupted by the desire to possess the ring and threaten Frodo as he journeys eastward. The movie chronicles Frodos's journey from the peace of the Shire east to the black regions of Mordor. The strength of the book, and one which director Peter Jackson translates well to the screen, is the compelling believability of this alternate world, peopled with creatures out of legend (elves, trolls, and wizards) as well as newer, imaginative creations of Tolkien's (hobbits and orcs). The battle and chase scenes are visually stunning, and the contrasts between the beauties of the untouched portions of this world and the ones which have been corrupted by the Ring's destructive power are vivid. Young children may find some of the battle scenes too frightening - at least one parent exited the movie with children under 9 who just got too scared (that's why the movie has a PG-13 rating!). At the end of the showing I went to, many members of the audience applauded. So did I ... and I wish I didn't have to wait a year to see the next episode!
Rating:
Summary: All hail Peter Jackson
Review: I found myself going to see it the first day, drawn almost against my will - I intended to wait until later. Overall, it was a fantastic and very scary experience, with explosive special effects and fine acting to boot. My favorites include Virgo Mortensen, practically an embodiment of true nobility as Aragorn, and Sean Bean as Boromir - exactly as headstrong and temptation-wracked as I imagined him. McKellen is a perfect Gandalf, powerful and mysterious at once, yet also with a distinct sense of humor ("a wizard is never late, he always arrives when he means to"). Elijah Wood as Frodo is sensitive and expressive with those now-famous eyes, but doesn't get to do much; then again, Frodo's personal epic really begins with "Two Towers". Gimli (the unrecognizable John Rhys-Davies) is mostly comic relief, as are Pippin and Merry (Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan), with some exceptions closer to the end. Since I couldn't care less about Bombadil and was relieved to see Arwen as a strong female character (so what she wasn't like that in the book, this is better - you can actually see Middle-Earth with your own eyes), I didn't have problems with Jackson's necessary editing of the source material. Besides, with the exception of the prologue, which, by the way, is spectacular, Arwen is the movie's first elf. Seeing her in a white halo, coming to Frodo's rescue, was a revelation for me. Legolas (Orlando Bloom) is amazing in combat, e.g. impaling an uruk-hai with a thrust of an arrow, then immediately firing it from his bow, and really puts the panache back into being an elf, which is very welcome after the long reign of miserable [attempts] such as AD&D. Jackson made sure he has every bit of elven grace and balance, as well. For example, just as in the book, Legolas treads easily over Caradhras snowdrifts without sinking. Generally, the fight scenes are well-done, my favorite being the skirmish with the cave troll in the depths of Moria, although close-ups are a little abused, so that sometimes it's hard to make out what is what. There aren't any episodes of fine fencing, but a lot of very realistic and inspiring, no-nonsense slashing, albeit almost entirely bloodless. Still, battles are abundant (sometimes even too much so, in my opinion) and impressive. To me, the most memorable moment came when whole broods of orcs began streaming down Moria's walls and pillars, chasing after the Fellowship like a stream of filthy grey roaches. Camera work is unobtrusive, but sure, throughout, and digitally enhanced. I only have two significant problems with the movie, and the second one is not Jackson's fault. The flaw I do blame him for is the Lorien episode: quite so-so, practically bare of any sense of atmosphere beyond the opening sequence when a glimse of the city is given, as though thrown in to fill in the gaps. Worse, I found Jackson's represenation of Galadriel lacking. She appears cloaked in light, which is repetitive, since Arewen has benefitted from the same effect, and she is never quite coherent, the idea being, apparently, a woman of mystery. Fine by me, but she intones a few too many riddles to be met with anything but annoyance. I imagined her majestic, not addled. The Mirror part had been completely ruined: too fast, leaving out important visions - in certain cases, to avoid revealing too much about the sequels, in others, for reasons unknown: where is Minas Tirith, opposed by Minas Morgul? Would it be so hard to give us a glimpse? Also, by this point we've been introduced to so many special effects that the vision of Galadriel as Dark Queen which follows fails to summon up any thrills. Which is the general complaint: the movie is rather hard to take. Even knowing the source material, I recommend you leaf through "The Fellowship" before seeing it. While never obscure, the film does refer to places which are not, or barely, shown. Gondor, for instance: at most a second of it is given, but the place is mentioned once in a while, likely to non-fans' confusion. The same goes for Elvish: subtitles are given in all the important cases, which incidentally serves to "authenticate" them, but little tidbits here and there escape understanding, leaving one with a "Damn I should have learned Quenya" feeling. By the same token, and it's generally a good thing, the picture is crammed with events. There is hardly any breathing space between cliffhangers, all of which are so brilliant and sparkle with special effects as to leave you stupefied and bedazzled by the end of the second hour. By the time Saruman's uruk-hai attack, you've seen the balrog, the Caradhras blizzard and the battle on Weathertop, and it's hard to bring yourself to care. There's just too much of excitement and information to absorb in one sitting. Jackson cannot be blamed for this, though: intensity is a consequence of LOTR's length, and he has translated it from one medium to another better than anyone could hope. The movie is sizzling with beauty and power, hence the difficulty: it's almost too blinding in its brilliance. Now shoo! Go see it.
Rating:
Summary: My Jaw has Officially Become One With the Floor
Review: The Lord of Rings is one of two huge, expensive, fantasy book adaptations coming out this year. The other being Harry Potter. I saw Harry Potter and loved and went into The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) with decent expectations, never expecting it to match Harry Potter. For the record, it runs circles around Harry Potter, trips him, and rubs his lighting-scarred face in the mud... twice. This film exceeded my expectations by such an astounding degree. Seeing the film was like reading the book again. The images on screen directly reflected the images in my head from the book. This is attributed mainly to Peter Jackson and his entire production crew at New Line. It was, for the most part, perfect. The visuals in Harry Potter look like Gameboy when placed next to LOTR's breathtaking effects. The acting is superb (even Liv Tyler and Sean Bean are incredible!), Elijah Wood and Ian McKellen being the high points. Easily besting Harry Potter and possibly the best fantasy film since Star Wars. In fact, I'll go as far as to call it the next Star Wars. Go see it at all costs.
Rating:
Summary: This trilogy will run rings around Star Wars
Review: So now we finally have Lord of the Rings the film as well as the book. Which is better?
The book. It is THE BIBLE of fantasy, Tolkien was not the greatest writer of the 20th Century, but Lord of the Rings is possibly the finest fantasy book in history, it inspired a whole new genre of literary, cinematic and gaming fantasy and has given pleasure to millions.
So what of the film? Well, firstly to make a carbon copy of the book would have been an unwise move, it just wouldn't translate, Tolkien had no intention of the book being realised on the big screen, in fact he hated the idea.
The film is simply stunning, the star of the film, as with the book is the landscape and geography. It must be remembered that Lord of the Rings is a single tale, (all beit an epic one), set in Middle Earth, a place rich in cultures, languages, art and racial differences. Unlike other fantasies, (and I include Star Wars in this), no other fantasy world contains as much background and support material. In one sense this will have helped all those involved in "researching" for the film, in another sense it is a hinderance, avid fans can recite many passages of the book as a mantra, so when changes have been made to the text this has been the cause of much critisism. However, if you are a fan and think of the film as an adaptation rather than a verbatim clone of Tolkien's book then there isn't much to complain about, critisism has been mixed; too long, too short, too heavy, too lightweight...I think those people miss the point, this film is for both the fan and the newcomer and on both accounts it satisfies.
Can I be cruel and attempt to find fault? not really, but here are my unfair critisisms, Lothlorien was too dark in lighting and atmosphere and the scaling of the hobbits and dwarves sometimes wasn't entirely convincing.
Is that my critisism? Well, yeah, picky or what! Tiny details that I really struggled to find, from the start of the film part of me wanted to find fault but it was so dammned difficult.
Yes bits were cut, but three films of eight hours each is a non-starter, not to mention an extra 100 million to add those sequences, maybe a slightly longer editors cut might appear on the DVD version, that would be the icing on the cake.
But, at the end of the day, if you want a clone of the book then just read the damn book and forget the film, but if you are someone who enjoys first rate fantasy, and are willing to sacrifice some sub-plots then go see it, personally I think the book meandered in some parts and the film benefits from most of the "prunining".
If you've never read the book, go see the film. If you do read any book after watching it, one of the first you'll buy will be The Lord of the Rings.
Both are masterpieces.
Rating: 
Summary: Ah... Well. What did you expect?
Review: Disapointment? Nobody really expected an epic of such power and scope to be faithfully reproduced on screen. So I walked in making an effort to be open-minded. I've worn out one copy of LOTR in hardback and who knows how many in paperback. I'm one of the biggest Tolkien heads around. I wanted this to be stupendous, yet I was doubtful. It turns out I was overly optimistic. Okay, the movies is cheesy, uneven, and disjointed. I doubt that anyone could follow the plot had they not read the book repeatedly. And the characterizations! That was Aragorn? Hardly. Frodo and Sam were acceptable. I liked Gandalf, even though a lot was missing there. But where is the hidden nobility and power of Aragorn? These qualities are not hidden in the movie, they are lost. Elrond was not true to the book, but awesome nonetheless. And what is Borimir? He was not the nobleman Tolkien portrayed. Did anyone figure out what he was? I could go on and on, but the real crime is Lothlorien and Galadriel. Did anyone come away from the movie with the feel that Galadriel is the high queen of the elves who lives in a timeless land of peace and beauty? I guess I missed it. Arwen combined with Glorfindel? I swallowed that one. It was early on in the movie. I truly missed Tom Bombadil. His elimination was saddning. And what happened to the Sword of Elendil?! Then there was Sauron. What was up with that? Sauron is the mysterious, unseen symbol of total evil. I didn't expect to see him in the flesh, much less as a central character. The eye was good. At least at times. I don't think anyone could have produced a physical reality that would resemble to Tolkien's Middle Earth. But the movie was hardly faithful to the spirit. Tolkien's Shire was a fastidiously neat place, a vast parkland that was quite tame and completely gentled to the hand of hobbit kind. The Shire of the movie was true to medivial England perhaps, but it hardly reflected my image of the Shire. Location were portrayed more grandiose than described, such as Rivendell, or too plain, as was the gate of Moria. Moria was fair, but I'd hoped for better. Every place seemed slightly derilict in the movie. I didn't get that from the book. Hmmm... Finally, I'd rather have seen less action and more explanation throughout the movie. Much was left out that was needful to support the later story. Much was left out that was needful to support this story! But instead, we were shown a confusing and unneccessary battle between Gandalf and Saruman, and a silly scene of peril on the stairs leading from the Chamber of Mazarbul. Okay, the whole bit about the Chamber of Mazarbul was silly. I guess I could go on forever. But in closing, if the second installment isn't a significant improvement, I doubt I'll ever see the final installment. I couldn't bear to see the events on the Field of Cormallen mangled the way Lorien was. And they'd better have the Ents right!
Rating:
Summary: Pretty good stuff
Review: I was not disappointed by the film and it lived up to my expectations (which, after waiting over a year to see it, says a lot). It is well directed, well acted, and generally just well done. It is not a perfect film, but considering the difficulty of the written material and the loyalty of the fans, I cannot (realistically speaking) envision a better adaptation of the written story. After the film, I was not falling all over myself with utter adoration for the film, but I am very pleased with the job all those involved have done with it. I cannot say more than that until I have seen all three films, considering that it is one story in three-parts (written as such and filmed as such). Here's to another long year of waiting!
|
