Rating: 
Summary: It's About Time
Review: My second grade teacher read us the Hobbit 26 years ago. Just a few years later, I read the Lord of the Rings for the first of many times. I have waited patiently for this movie to be made ever since.
While I did enjoy the animated version that came out several years ago , I felt that it did not do the story justice. It was too child-like in its adaptation. I do not believe that Tolkien was writing a children's story.
I saw the Lord of the Rings movie yesterday. Simply put, I was awestruck. It was one of the best movies that I have seen in my 33 years. It was just so powerful and well done. I wouldn't change a thing about it.
A special thank you to the creators of this movie for making one of this man's dreams come true.
Rating: 
Summary: Visually Stuning, yet flawed.
Review: The Fellowship of the Ring, is a well made film that deviates from the book in unthoughtful ways. Despite visually rich cinematography the film lacks cohesion and character development. Gandalf is is suberbly acted, but needless changes have been made to make him more falible. An example would be Elrond telling him the ring can't stay in Rivendell. Of course it can't, Gandalf discovered the ring, is imprisioned over the ring, tells Frodo numerous times the ring must be destroyed, and yet he has the vain notion that it can stay forever in Rivendell? Come on, this is PC Hollywood trying to make a character "more human", it makes no sense. There are several other troubling points in the film, that feel more like the Super Friends or some dopey action film like Face-Off. For instance, when the company of nine have been decided, Elrond says "and you shall be called the Fellowship of the Ring." I half expected Superman to fly into the frame and say "The Justice League will support you too!" Get real, the nine are on what they feel is a hopeless and solemn quest, the don't need a dopey label to know what they are.
There are several such lamentable changes to the film, both in storyline and dialogue. The worst probably being in the end of the film when Aragorn says "Let's hunt some Orc!" Good Lord, did Peter Jackson put on his Arnord-tinted glasses when he approved that line, or is he just more concerned about making a "movie" than he is about telling a story. Muses have been around for a long time, pesonally I think it is because men need inspiration to create, and little inspires man more than women. Unfortunately in this case, I think the muse that hit Peter Jackson was the typical Hollywood muse for over the top profit. Anyone who has read the books will be disappointed by the lack of character development, and the disjointed and rushed storyline.
The main culprit, may be the medium itself. To make a truly Grand epic, where characters grow, suspense builds, and subtle tension reigns, "The Lord of the Rings" should be a Television mini-series akin to Lonesome Dove or Centennial, both of which are excellent and much more detailed and faithful adaptations of the books that inspired them. Spend you 8.50 on a copy of "The fellowship of the Ring", buy a good pair of slippers while you're out, and curl up in a chair and read. Your patience and attention will be rewarded.
Rating: 
Summary: an earnest, yet unsucessfull attempt to film the unfilmable
Review: Being a lifelong fan of the book, and having re-read
it just weeks prior to the viewing, it is completely
impossible for me to give Peter Jackson's FOTR an
reasonable evaluation from an artistic standpoint. I
couldn't help but dissect the film scene-by-scene as
opposed to percieving it as one cinematic whole. At
times it felt like a protracted illustration and
little else. Perhaps a second or third viewing will
correct that. For now, on first impression, I can only
say that the film was uneven, at times frustrating.
Frustrating because some of its aspects worked
beautifully; and some were pulling it into quite the
opposite direction. Frustrating because Jackson does
have a strong personal vision, yet he did make some
grave and obvious concessions to Hollywood. Here's the
breakdown: THE GOOD: 1) Visuals: Landscapes, Architecture and Interiors.
Flawless. Majestic. Alan Lee, as design consultant
worked miracles. And furthermore, it made New Zealand
a lucrative travel destination for me. 2) Certain Actors.
Specifically portraying Gandalf, Bilbo, Sam, a few
others... mostly dead-on, much like I always imagined. 3) The "creative license" scenes.
Surprisingly enough, most of them did not detract from
the movie, and even enlivened it a bit. Arwen's
involvement did not seem out of place, and her "flight
to the ford" scene is easily one of the finest
setpieces of the whole 3 hours. In fact, I would have
liked to see even more of her. The allusions to
various chapter titles were in good spirit, and the
comic relief for the most part worked decently,
although it was somewhat upsetting to see Merry and
Pippin reserved strictly for that purpose. The
subtitled Elvish was a nice touch, in part because it
eliminated the prospect of listening to Aragorn's and
Arwen's romantic dialogue in English (!) 4) Action Scenes.
Nicely staged, esp. the entire Moria sequence. THE MEDIOCRE: 1) Heavy Cuts.
It's true that the film is rushed. The only clues to
how much time elapses between various scenes are
periodic edits to the transformation of Isengard, and
that is insufficient. Many scenes feel shortened in
order to meet the 3 hour obligation, especially those
of Lorien and I would hope the more complete version
makes it to DVD. 2) At times, overdramatic.
Some of the players' approach is not very authentic,
overly self-aware, Elrond most of all. Aragorn and
Boromir overact on occasion, but sparingly. Saruman
and Gandalf, bellowing spells at each other across
mountain passes come off as a pair of grand opera
singers. 3) Derivative Effects.
While impressive in their own right, the Wizard duel
scene, Cave Troll, and Balrog seem to be inspired by
latter-day videogames rather than by Tolkien's
descriptions. THE BAD: 1) Frodo's cleanliness.
While Elijah Wood's undoubtedly put his heart and soul
into the role, his physical appearance was just a tad
bit overpolished. He resembled a computer generated
model rather than a living, breathing hobbit. And
throughout the film, not a speck of dirt seemed to
have touched him - does being the ringbearer
automatically merit a daily bath in wartime
conditions? 2) Prologue.
Cheezy and unnessesary. Much of it is repeated through
subsequent flashbacks anyway. Could have done without
it and went on straight to the original storyline. The
initial shot of Sauron holding up the ring is
laughable, straight out of a grade-Z flick. He is
better left unseen. 3)The Soundtrack.
Atrocious, absolutely atrocious. The single element of
LOTR that tipped the scale toward the negative for me.
If it was used half as much, the movie would have been
greatly eleveated in my mind. But this generic
tripe...too closely reminiscent of Titanic for
comfort. Remeber that secne in South Park when a character was tortured to death by Enya's music? Well, that's precisely how I felt...
Rating:
Summary: A Whole Year?
Review: I have waited nearly all my life for someone to translate Tolkien's masterpiece to th big screen. I watched the cartoon versions annually as a child, dressed up like Eowyn, and just longed for the big screen version. I began to hear rumors about 3 years ago and have been anxiously awaiting the release. Sometimes I thought the movie would never live up to my dreams since I have had them for so long. Oh how happily wrong I was! The movie is absolutely brilliant! The casting is brilliant! The Shire, Rivendell, and Lothlorien are absolutely breathtaking. The special effects are wonderful. I cannot hardly stand it that I have to wait a whole year to see the next installment and then another year afterr that to see the final chapter! The Fellowship of the Rings definately beats Harry Potter. Harry was good, but lacks the depth and beauty of Middle Earth! I sat in awe during the entire movie and when it was over, I could not believe that three hours had gone by!
The work that everyone put into the movie must be applauded because it was absolutely breathtaking and brilliant! I can't wait to see it again!
Rating:
Summary: Book is masterpiece = Movie a masterpiece
Review: The formula of a great book = a great movie is almost never true. The Fellowship of the Ring is a wonderful movie because it has sucessfully brought the book to the screen. There are wonderful special effects and exciting action scenes, but they are all in support of the fanstastic story created by Tolkein -- rather than being created for their own sake. I applaud everyone involved with this movie for achieving this seemingly impossible task. Liked it so much I went home at 1AM and got out my copy of the "Fellowship of the Ring" for a fresh re-reading.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent story and special effects...
Review: This film has an excellent mixture of real footage and special effects. It is freaquently difficult to tell the difference between the real and computer generated. From the previews and trailers it was hard to tell that they had digitally shortened the Hobit characters, but in the movie it is amazing how they accomplished this. I can't wait to see the making of the movie that I am sure will be on the DVD when it comes out. This movie deserves five stars, no question in my mind. As many people have, I am sure, I read these stories when I was in high school, and I can't remember the finer points of the novels. From what I remember however, I think that the movie did ample justice to the book. Many things in the movie happened differently than I had imagined -- bigger and better! One caution though, don't take the PG-13 rating for granted. This is a violent and dark/evil film at times. I saw several children in the theater that were under 10; this is far more violent and scary than Harry Potter. At times the battles reminded me of Braveheart's, but condensed. In all, for adults and older teens, this is a great film about the classic battle between good and evil, in a fairy tale setting.
Rating:
Summary: Totally Awesome!!!!
Review: I have been eagerly awaiting this movie to come out forever. Everytime a preview came out I practically had a heart attack. The only thing I was a little wary of was if it would follow the book. Seeing that I've read Fellowship five times I was hoping it wouldn't disappoint me. So, on Dec. 19 I slept out at the theatre with some of my friends in below zero temperatures and waited for about tweleve hours before I got to see the first show in my city open to the public. It was completely and utterly amazing! First of all I decided after seeing it I was packing up my bags and moving to Rivendell! The sets are amazing, the casting is utterly perfect. The movie only strays from the book in two places which annoyed me slightly but the overall effect was amazing. I have to rave now about Orlando Bloom who plays Legolas. He was so amazing not only is he good looking for the ladies but he embodied completely Legolas, the other character that was simply perfect was Pippin. All the cast was wonderful Ian McKellen was born to play Gandalf and Eligah Wood nails the part of Frodo. This movie surpassed my wildest dreams. For people very true to the book be expected to not see Tom Bombadil and Farmer Maggot in the Shire and be prepared for instead of Glorfindel they have Arwen's part a bit expanded. Also the end is slightly different but you can see that for yourself. See this movie it is defnitly up there on the best movies ever made!
Rating:
Summary: Tolkien's Masterpiece Becomes a Film Classic
Review: As a long-time fan of Tolkien's classic works, I couldn't have been happier with the first film adaptation of his benchmark series. Obviously the film-makers are not only top-notch in their field, but also true fans of Tolkien's work. The adaptation of the original "Fellowship of the Ring" to this movie was flawless. In fact, this is the best book-to-movie adaptation I've ever seen. Although I could act like a fan-boy and complain about the parts I like that they skipped, I have to admit that the changes they made for time were well-chosen, and that the things that were cut that were not for length were mostly for the purpose of maintaining the mood and feel that the filmmakers were trying to get across with the film. As for changes, I cannot imagine the few alterations in the plot that they made as being more well-crafted than they were. Often the changes were simply for the purpose of setting up various parts of the plot that will come out in parts 2 and 3. In fact, I thought that some of the changes actually improved on Tolkien's original! Which considering how classic and well-written the books are is quite a statement. Overall I haven't been this awestruck by a movie since I watched "Star Wars: A New Hope" for the first time as an 8-year-old. The only complaint I have about the movie is that I can't wait to see the next chapter!
Rating:
Summary: It worked. Against all odds, it worked.
Review: There were ten thousand ways it could have gone wrong, but it was right -- beautifully, lovingly right. First, the characterizations were exactly correct. Ian McKellan simply was Gandalf. Ian Holm was a perfect Bilbo. The minor changes in Aragorn, Arwen, Pippin and Merry were acceptable and reasonable, given that a lot of scenes had to be cut, and therefore some motivations had to be changed. (For instance, with no time for a conspiracy in the Shire, Merry and Pippin needed a new way to join the party.) Sean Bean's Boromir, Sean Astin's Sam and Elijah Wood's Frodo worked well. I won't say much more about the characterization, because I never thought about actors or characterizations during the film. I just watched Frodo's journey. But the strength of The Lord of the Rings is more than the characters. The major character in any trip through Fairy-land is Fairy-land itself, and the books contain brilliant and emotional descriptions of the various places in Middle-Earth. They succeeded.
I could recognize every place immediately. Bag End, Bree, Rivendell, Moria, Caras Galadhon, the Argonath, Barad-Dur, the Cracks of Doom, Caradhras and Orthanc were clearly and obviously Bag End, Bree, Rivendell, Moria, Caras Galadhon, the Argonath, Barad-Dur, the Cracks of Doom, Caradhras and Orthanc. With one exception, I can't name *any* way in which these places don't match Tolkien's descriptions. C. S. Lewis was once asked why he liked Shakespeare so much, and he replied, "Because he takes me somewhere I've never been before." By contrast, this movie took me back to a place I *have* been before -- the end of the Third Age of Middle-Earth. It felt much like going back to my old college, or the house I grew up in (which, in a very real sense, it was). Peter Jackson's direction impressed me with both how true he was to the original, and with how and when he chose to deviate from it. Tolkien spends much more time describing things that Jackson shows in a single shot. Jackson spends more time on movement and combat and other things that take time to show. He was equally concerned with being true to Tolkien's vision and with making the best movie possible (which is not the same thing as filming the best book). He did not balance the two goals - he aimed at both. Examples: many things that are discussed in the Council of Elrond are actually shown in the movie -- dialog about action is not as cinematic as action. The council itself takes a different course, which gets all the essential information in quickly. (Consider thirty minutes to an hour of a bunch of people sitting around and talking. As much as I'd like to see that scene, imagine the effect it would have on non-Tolkien fanatics.) Some events were moved because of the necessary time compression. Since the long discussion in Bag End about Gollum's origins was cut, the lines about Pity were moved to the first time we see Gollum. That kept an essential plot point, while reducing the amount of exposition. Some changes were dictated by the medium. The thoughts that went through Frodo's mind near the end turned into dialog so that they could be shown on screen, so he had to tell it to somebody. It seemed a reasonably elegant solution. There are several things that are put in for the fans but are unremarked on and will be ignored by the others. The sign on the gate, Legolas walking on the snow, some chapter titles turned into dialog, Bilbo's book and maps done in Tolkien's hand, etc. Mostly, the effects were wonderful -- both technically and artistically satisfying. There was one special effect that left me cold. (No, I won't identify it.) But, oh the Balrog! And the Fords of Bruinen. And the Eye of Sauron. And the pits at Orthanc. And,... but enough. The effects made the fantasy real. One comment about the fighting -- Gimli fought like a dwarf, Legolas fought like an elf, Boromir fought like a warrior, Aragorn fought like a loner, the troll fought like a troll, the Uruk-Hai fought like a group of people who weren't good at cooperation. I thought Bob Anderson put a lot of attention into individual styles. I don't agree with all the choices made. But it is a worthy and delightful vision of Middle-Earth. It was clearly a labor of love, by people who loved Tolkien and loved films.
Rating: 
Summary: Almost
Review: O.K. I'll preface this with an overview opinion of the source material, which I read only once, a lifetime ago. The novels by their nature, given the amount of information to be disseminated, were a tad dry. Though detailed, they were not emotionally engaging. Fantasy seldom, if ever, is. Humanity and humor are traditionally given short shrift. They are detailed intellectual games, based on moral simplifications. Their characters are constructed to serve the plot not drive it.
That said, the film version is visually striking for the most part. However the use of computerized color filters was a tad distracting, particularly when not applied to all characters in the same frame. Speaking of color, Mr. Wood's turquoise eyes did became a bit much at times. Also obvious rotoscope effects, or their computerized cousin, jar a bit in contrast to full CGI. A Hobbit size quibble I admit.
The scaling techniques worked quite well, with minimal slips of continuity. The blending of CGI and real footage was admirable. Speaking of footage, for all the talk of the hobbit prosthetics, how truly necessary were they, other than in a few closeups. In most cases you were, forgive the pun, too many feet away.
I give the film credit for not bowing to a juvenile audience in that it does not attempt to dilute the menace/threat of evil. Of course Orcs, while fierce, frightening and plentiful, really can't fight for a hill of beans, now can they. Thank goodness the hobbits finally got some smudges on their faces, even Frodo.
I never knew wizards were such talented break dancers. My audience found the homing eagle sequence amusing. Someone, obviously not from middle earth, gave the effect the bird. Elfville, elegant though it was, got a bit static. Hugo Weaving should lighten up, come on you're an elf, live with it. A number of the audience used this sequence for a visit to the little hobbit's room. Hey where did whats'r'name the dark haired elf come from. Recessive genie perhaps. Great costumes, sets (a bit to clean), hobbit housekepping I guess. Perhaps a germanic influence. Loved the horses. Is there a horse award out there?
For the uninitiated it was a lot to follow, no fault to the filmakers, it is simply a lot to follow. Emotionally engaging? Not in the least, but as I said, neither is/are the book/books. Film, however has the need to infuse the humanity and humor that a book might leave to the reader's imagination. The audience I saw it with was primarily adult or semi-adult and appeared to leave somewhat nonplussed. Although I believe a good number were ready to move to New Zealand. Well, to the nice Orc-free neighborhoods at least.
All in all I enjoyed the movie. I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for magic.
|
