Rating: 
Summary: Great action, great vistas AND better humour than Tolkien
Review: If you ask an English professor about Tolkien's weaknesses, the chances are that, besides the 2D characters ascribed to women, they'll point out the pretty feeble attempts at humour in LotR. Eleventy-first birthday? Ridiculous and infantile.So I'm very pleased to report that whoever has written the screenplay for Peter Jackson has improved this aspect. They may have meddled with some of the minor details of who does what, but the jokes are clearly better than JRRT's. Most of it stems, as you would expect, from the hobbits. Elijah Wood's Frodo is pretty androgynous, and I particularly liked the scene in the mines of Moria where Gandalf says, "There's a lot more to Frodo than we all suspected,". Here Frodo unbuttons his shirt to reveal a glimpse of his mithril vest, but it's so glitzy that the unstated punch-line is "Yes, he likes wearing women's underwear!". Goodness knows whether the movie deliberately makes references to others. When Gandalf says emphatically to Frodo "Is it safe?", are we supposed to recall 'Marathon Man'? If so, why? After an initial battle sequence, the movie takes some time to get going while it sets up the plot in the Shire. My daughter got distracted. But as soon as the quest is begun, there is never a dull moment. The special effects are good, and it's good to see a competitor to Industrial Light & Magic. Slightly tedious after a while is the technique used to solve the scale problem for the face-to-face scenes between hobbits and larger people. The swirling effect whenever Frodo puts the ring on are brilliant. The soundtrack is particularly well done -- there is music for much, if not all, of the time, but it's not as overdone or glutinous as John Williams' work on 'The Phantom Menace'. Overall, this is the classic I hoped it would be. I'm going to see it again tomorrow!
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent...I am happy
Review: Lacking the words to describe what I have seen last night, I want to thank Peter Jackson for his interpretation of the Lord of the rings. Of course there are some parts missing, but it does not badly interfere with the story. He is forgiven for a little love story momento and the movie gets you to forget everything around you. Elijah Wood and Ian McKellen as Gandalf and Frodo are perfect incarnations. A tale has come true, more true than I thougt it'd ever be possible. I want to travel, want to see Middle Earth, I can't wait to watch it again.... probably on Christmas Eve, a perfect treat!
Rating: 
Summary: Very flawed but still a good action/FX film
Review: Having taken a 2 day break before seeing LOTR for the 2nd time, I'm now editing my original thoughts which expressed some problems I thought the film had. The film is split in two halves; everything before the Mines of Moria happens at an incredible pace and with such break-neck editing that I still can't remember a thing that happened or what was said. In other words, its a real mess. However, from the Mines of Moria onwards, the movie really takes off with the Moria sequence in particular being realised incredibly well. I think the main problem with the film is that I expect films to firstly deliver the character/relationship development and then follow up with the action that the people we have just got to know and like get involved in. The action IS all there in the second half of the film and it is all done extremely well. However, because the first half of the film absolutely does NOT deliver on the character development stuff, ultimately the whole thing suffers. I can think of no dialogue involving Frodo or Sam that gives me any idea about their personalities or their relationship until the very end of the film (the boat) and that's GOT to be the wrong way round, the film's over at that point! I suspect that PJ etc have gone way too far in trying to cram as much detail as possible from the book (places/names that noone will remember etc) into the first half at the cost of character development. LOTR is a very complex story and it HAD to be simplified hugely to make a good, or even understandable, FILM, they failed in this I think, I imagine because they were trying too hard to please fans of the book. Its understandable and even laudible but its a fatal mistake in any book-film translation, even when you have 3 hours to play with ... Anyway, a word about the actors. I think everyone did a fine job. I can barely bring myself to use the term 'actors' regarding Frodo and Sam's characters as they are given nothing to act out IMO, they really are one dimensional and are the most underdeveloped characters in the whole film, pretty amazing as I recall them being the leads in the book! An interesting contrast to that is the Ring itself; I almost feel like it should get a mention in the credits as it spends so much time on the screen! Best actors IMO are Gandalf, Boromir (especially) and Aragorn. I'd like to finish off by mentioning the much-derided 1978 Ralph Bakshi animation. Its not fashionable to express this I know but I have to say that I like it very much and I would even go so far as to say that PJ and co could have learned some very useful lessons by studying this. It has a better (tighter) script/screenplay, is scarier and much, much more emotionally involving than this latest attempt. It even gets a book and a half into a couple of hours. Animation or not, its probably a better film if you remove big blockbuster special effects from the equation ... Last word on this, its just my personal opinion of course but I reckon that Viggo modelled his Aragorn on the Bakshi animation (his voice at least), they're just too similar for it not to be the case (it might also account for why he's so good) :) Hope this all doesn't sound too negative. I've given the film 4 stars which I think is accurate. I'd very rarely give a film 5 stars but I think this would have romped home with a tighter and less confusing first half. I should also say that I was dying for this film to be released and while I won't say that I'm very disappointed with it, its true to say that it could have been a tremendous film with a bit more courage/thought in the screenplay/script/editing department. I should also say that I think the next two films will be much better as the hefty weight of character development is removed somewhat. If they keep it on course, I really do expect the next films to be awesome ...
Rating:
Summary: The best film ever!!
Review: And...YES!!! I've seen THE film! At 00:01 last night I saw the film. It's just amazing. Of course something was left out, but that didn't bother me. This is probably the best film I've ever seen! Peter Jackson is my favourite director from now on. And Elijah Wood is my favourite actor! Everything...and I mean EVERYTHING in this film was perfect. I didn't miss a thing. And to everyone who hasn't seen it: You have something to look forward to!
Rating: 
Summary: decent, no more no less
Review: First of all the characters are all portrayed adequately, except Elrond, Hugo Weaving sucks many people even laughed at his overacting, he ruined the role. The fights were awesome and quite exciting but like all modern hack and slash scenes they go way to quickly and the action is blurred. Legolas steals the show his battle scenes are absolutely incredible. the director made the mistake of adding some ridiculous comedy relief (merry and pippin) which is poor at best. Even Gimli is is humbled by wasted attempts at humour. The special effects are great but some are over done. Christor Lee does a great job as Saruman. The Uruk-Hai leader Lurtz is the epitome of macho bravado (in a bad way) Huge scenes are left out completely (Tom Bombadil). the dialogue was good but the animated versions script was far better. And Finally the character is so awful that it made me queasy. She replaces Glorfindel completely (even the animated version cut him out:-( ). The intro sequence battle was fantastic, but the rest sucked, again the animated version was much better. There are also inconsitencies due to they way it was filmed. Overall the film was decent and far from a masterpiece. Look for a cameo by the director in Bree (eating a turnip and burping). And don't believe the bad press about the animated adaption it is a great film and vastly underappreciated.
Rating:
Summary: it's a great movie.
Review: Well, I just saw the movie with my friends. Despite a few short comings (repeated swooping overhead camera views and the silly look-i-am-so-cool-because-i-have-blue-eyes scenes pop up in my mind at the moment), I believe that the movie captures the spirit of the book quite well. My friends who don't even like the fantasy genre got sucked into the movie, and they all expressed their desire to read the books! To me, this is the best fantasy movie ever made.
Rating:
Summary: It's all that you want it to be, and more
Review: True moviegoers have come to know a familiar desire in these days of gross commercialization and cross-promotion: that an anticipated new film will live up to its hype. Well, "The Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't just live up to its hype. It stomps all over it. Hype becomes a devalued word, useless when confronted by a movie this good. It is hype proof. While it's shattering the need for one word, it is reincarnating another: Epic. It is a word that has come to represent such ignoble qualities as garishness, largess, of being over done and over long. But "The Fellowship of the Ring" restores the original sense of the word; it is historic, legendary, heroic, and grand. Director Peter Jackson, an intimate artist who just happens to be painting on a large scale here, retains most (if not all) of Tolkien's story, while shedding a lot of superfluous background information. He finds the middle ground between not pandering to those familiar with the book, and providing enough background for those not familiar with the book. The information presented is necessary, and relevant to the story being told, but also alludes to the wealth of knowledge laying underneath, tempting those who see the movie to go out and delve into the book for more. Which is really what a good film adaptation should do. And Jackson, known for his keen cinematic eye, does not disappoint. In fact, he exceeds all expectations, bringing to the screen a visual aesthetic that is both original and personal. He constructs several visceral and kinetic, if a bit confusing, battle scenes. The confusion works, however, in that it brings a real sense of danger to the scenes. The scenery he (or rather, Grant Major) created was breathtaking when it needed to be, and foreboding when necessary, but always real, textured, and inspiring: The Shire was quaint and wondrous; Rivendell was majestic and picturesque; Mordor was vile and perilous. Jackson, for all his skills with visual aesthetics, never lets it trample on his characters. Most were fully drawn, with real emotion and motivations. Legolas didn't say much, but when he did it spoke volumes. Boromir, a conflicted man whose purpose to the plot is paramount, was handled well, with the respect and care the character deserves. Gandalf the Grey, who has become the archetypal *omnipotent* wizard, could have been portrayed as just that. But that would not have been true to the character. Like in the book, Gandalf is not all-powerful, especially when confronted by, in one memorable scene, the formerly good now evil wizard Saruman. Gandalf is a flawed man, but wise enough to know how to overcome his weaknesses for the good of the fellowship. And Frodo Baggins, the little Hobbit entrusted with the Ring, begins life as a wide-eyed innocent. But we watch him grow and learn of the magnitude of his task, sensing along with him the fear and obligation he comes to know. But the one character who made the most seamless jump from book to film was Strider. He was my favourite character in the book, and my assessment of him hasn't changed in his celluloid form. In fact, the film Strider may have even more depth, as his key background information, which in the books doesn't come till much later, is revealed early on. It doesn't take away from the flow of the story as far as I'm concerned, because Jackson handles the release of this information with a skillful touch. I was worried that rumours of broadened female roles, in a cheap attempt to widen the film's appeal, would be true. Rest easy, friends. They're not. Arwen and Galadriel, even though they're played by big name actresses, appear enough in the movie so that they register, but not so much that they'll anger hardcore Tolkien fans. Some characters, however, left something to be desired. Gimli the Dwarf was all gruff exterior, with no inner machinations to speak of (he has one line, in the Mines of Moria, that, while funny, seems terribly out of place). Pippin and Merry acted more like the Two Stooges than loyal fellows. However, they did provide the film with some much needed comic relief, and will get many opportunities to grow in the next movie of the trilogy. Any criticisms leveled at these three characters, however, do not detract from the movie at all. It should also be noted that all of the characters were perfectly cast. Any reservations I had about, say, Sean Astin as Samwise, or Liv Tyler as Arwen, were quickly put to rest. And some choices, like Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Viggo Mortensen as Strider, or even Elijah Wood as Frodo, were nothing short of perfect inspiration. "The Fellowship of the Ring" is not for the casual moviegoer. It demands your attention and, at times, that you do some homework before viewing. It's a movie epic in scope but aware of the importance of its small details (the musical score by Howard Shore, and the cinematography by Andrew Lesnie were always spectacular but never intrusive). And even though it runs a hair under three hours, you'll wish that the filmmakers had given you more. They will, don't worry. Although you'll need some time to once again be able to produce adrenalin and experience awe. And if the next two movies are anywhere near as good as this one, well, we're all going for a wonderful ride.
Rating:
Summary: I can't believe what I am reading
Review: I cannot believe some of the reviews I am reading. No, I haven't seen the movie yet. So the 3 star rating I gave it is fairly neutral. However, I am blown away by what I am hearing about LOTR. I am one of those die-hard fans who have been waiting for years for technology to catch up to Tolkien's imagination, and more, our imaginations. There are those like myself who wish to see no change between the book and movie, and I hope that is so. However, I think I will be disappointed. No characters should be allowed extra screen time because of the actresses stardom, and the dialouge should be almost word for word. True, some things must be taken out, so I, personally, will be satisfied with some degree of dialouge editing in order to make the film understandable for those new to LOTR. My biggest hope is that people will NOT see this film and think they know LOTR. I hope this film will spur people to go and read the novels, and live life on Middle Earth themselves like so many of us have. I read a review that stated that issues could have been explored within the movie and that the film is racist, sexist, and so on. I disagree. This isn't a movie designed to explore social issues. These are films based on a series of novels, just as so many Steven King novels have been. The movie should, for the most part, follow the books. The directors of such films though are allowed some sort of poetic lisence. I just hope it is not used too much. I will return tomorrow after I see the movie, and give an updated review.....I hope I am not disappointed...
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding! Fantastic! Incredible!
Review: I saw this movie at the preview organized in Lithuania. And I can well say it is the best movie I've ever seen. It even dropped my previous No.1 movie "The Matrix" to the second place. It was 3 hours long, but only felt like a 1.5 hour. After it, I felt I could sit yet for another 3 hours, just to see the second movie. It is so hard to wait for another one for the whole year! Why is it so charming? I won't speak about the book it is based on - it WAS already recongnized by readers as a bible of fantasy. First of all, for the characters: E.Wood as Frodo, and I.McKellen as Gandalf - they don't play the characters, they ARE the characters. Second, the atmosphere: you don't watch the movie, you take part in it. Third, you don't notice the sp.effects, they're unseparable from all the rest. Fourth... you have to see it for yourself. It is all time greatest.
Rating:
Summary: This is definately one of the (if not the) best movies ever
Review: I was one of the lucky bastards who got a chance to see the prerelease of the new Lord of the Rings movie.
I am extremely happy to report that this movie is almost everything you would expect from it! The storyline is very faithfull to the book, the cast is great and the special effects are simply astounding! This is simply a breathtakingly beautiful movie! For me, a great Tolkien fan of course, this is without a doubt THE best movie EVER!!
|
