Rating: 
Summary: The Look and Feel are Right
Review: Clearly, the look and feel of Jackson's Fellowship is right on. The faithful rendering and visual "rightness" of The Shire, Moria, the Company, and the Orcs was much better than I had hoped for. There were a few quibbles here and there, but they were minor. The quibbles were distractions that will probably melt away on subsequent viewings. For example, the Hobbits should have been a bit more plump and their feet should have been smaller. I was particularly appreciative of Jackson's interpretation of Frodo's transformation when he wore the Ring. The sense of mystery and power was very strong. This is an instance where Jackson was better than Tolkien.Unfortunately, the the filmmaker opens himself to criticism when it comes to his rendering of the tale itself. I understand that time was a reason for eliminating some events and characters (Tom Bombadil, Barrow-Downs, Barliman Butterbur, and Bill Ferny). I might be saddened by their abscense, but I understand. I am having a harder time with the changes in substance. A few instances - When Frodo encountered the Black Riders at Weathertop he was not a shrinking violet. In fact, his wound was the result of his courage and the defense of his kinsmen. At the crossing of the Ford it wasn't necessary to be PC and have a female elf ride to the rescue, to me having a horse (Asfaloth) save Fordo was Tolien's choice. The connection between the charcters of Middle Earth and the animals is a central and important theme. The Council of Elrond was particularly disappointing. If you have read the book I shouldn't need to explain. The final scenes, when the Fellowship was broken, were disappointing as well. We didn't see that (once again) Samwise is smarter than he or anyone else gives him credit for. In the book, he uses his head to figure out Frodo's design. It wasn't some happy accident. Lastly, Boromir's last battle was his alone. Strider was too late. Boromir's courage and remorse at the last were his redemption. In the book we are able to glimpse Strider's less than super-human reality. He doesn't always come to the rescue and he can be indecisive. Two parting comments - Strider needs sword-play lessons! In real life he'd have been cut to shreds if he exposed himself as he did in the film. Voice-over during the travel scenes would have been a great way to communicate the history underlying the events and characters.
Rating: 
Summary: WOW
Review: Combine a great story, a huge budget, and highly creative imagination and you get The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring. This is an incredible movie! The story is too complex to paraphrase but let's just say this, by the time the third installment hits the theatres, there will be pandemonium in the streets with everyone fighting to get into the theaters. The story grabs ahold of you at the beginning, and never lets go, a truly EPIC film. Buy this movie, it's awesome!
Rating:
Summary: What was that reviewer thinking
Review: coming from a middle of the ground aged reviewer, I thought that the Fellowshiop of the Ring was by far the best DVD I have bought to date. I am a college student who has loved watching the great Star Wars trilogy growing up, but honestly Peter Jackson's work on the Lord of the Rings blows George Lucas away. This movie is one of the greatest accomplishments in filmaking, and the extended DVD adds needed plot points and details that are well thought out, and are actually useful in knowing if you see the Two Towers (who isnt gonna see that one). It is appaling that I saw one review saying this DVD was boring, I guess that guy's imagination fell out of his head long ago. This is truly the peak as far as movies go. Watch and Enjoy
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings; Fellowship of the Ring (special editition
Review: Completely worth it to buy the special edition of this movie - it has a lot of neat things that you'll love if you enjoy the movie.
And this movie should be enjoyed by all - it is brilliant in many ways, along with the story.
A great movie.
Rating:
Summary: Best Adaptation Ever
Review: Confession - I am modern man and, as such, am frequently very representative of my generation - skeptical and dismissive, irreverent and difficult to impress. In the past, I would be hard pressed to admit satisfaction without finding some grievance with anything, let alone a Hollywood blockbuster. But here's the deal - Peter Jackson's Fellowship of The Ring is as perfect as the Hollywood adventure gets. I would defend any and all of the changes that were made in adapting Tolkien's opus in a blood fight against any JRRT geek who shall step forward. Fellowship - this first part of the trilogy, more than Towers and ROTK, begs for contraction... it is longest in the number of pages and approximately 18 years falls between the beginning and the end. I've heard complaints at the lack of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights and I have to tell you that the Bombadil section of the story is the most easily omitted, mainly because he dominates the one chapter or so and then never comes up again. The main point of Bombadil is the insertion of some more singing and to dish out magic weaponry. This really isn't worth ten minutes of screen time. What I love about this movie is the speed and sense of urgency that moves things and, yes, the result is that a lot of moments of the book get cut. This movie has kept the focus solely on the movement of the ring to mount doom. This is the best way to do adventure on screen - make sure that the characters have major (life or death) objectives that they continue to pursue. Some express that the movie omitted the sense that the fellowship had a decision to make over whether to go to Mordor or Gondor. It was not an omission; something that they accidentally forget... it was a change and a damned good one. I love the suggestion that the ring is going to Mordor - period. This is the doubtless objective that drives the film that makes it move well. If there was a lot of hesitation and the sense that they were just going south and making the decision later then we're left with aimless location driven drivel (Phantom Menace anyone?). There's been disdain for the fact that Frodo tells Aragorn he's going by himself to Mordor and Aragorn accepts it. I cannot put into words how genius I think this move is, primarily because in the book Aragorn figures it out quickly anyway and here we're spared a boring scene where they all stand around scratching their heads. Secondly, I always felt it was peculiar that Aragorn (in the novel) wants to protect Frodo and yet when he figures out that Frodo went off and that Boromir tried to take the ring (possibly scaring him off) that he does not go after him. It seems like cowardice because he himself proposed the idea that he go to Mordor with Frodo and Sam and that the others go to Gondor. In the film, Frodo gets to look him in the eyes and Aragorn knows that he is going off for the right reasons. Then there's those that gripe about the extended role of Arwen, probably feeling that it's been Hollywooded up by adding more of 'the girl' and 'romance'. But isn't it queer that Aragorn marries Arwen, who does so little. If it happens exactly as the book, the audience will end up liking Eowyn more as a stronger character. Not that Aragorn has to love the stronger character, it's just that by showing more of what George Costanza would call 'relationship Aragorn' - Aragorn out of the context of the quest or war, it doesn't just add more Arwen, it adds dimension to the future king - adds humanity, which honestly isn't in the book. At least one fan review says something to the extent that many fans take great offense to the fact that Glorfindel was eliminated. What they don't understand is that in a movie it can be hard to throw in extra characters with extra names mainly because the names are frequently missed (their not written down for you to see every few lines after all). Since Glorfindel doesn't ever come up again, why burden an audience that's already taking in a lot of info with his presence? I feel that the reason some fans are so attached to these small characters (Glorfindel, Bombadil, Lobelia, Lotho) is because there's something lacking in some of the power players in the books. My examples are Aragorn, Saruman and to a lesser degree Gandalf. Tolkien creates Aragorn and Gandalf as almost arrogant know it alls and though he often says that they show mercy or compassion or love or kindness, he doesn't show them do it (this, by the way, is a frequent symptom of fantasy - and other genre type - writing). The film has taken bold moves to flesh out these characters and show them as Tolkien meant for them to be. Saruman in the trilogy is an almost sniveling and pathetic villain. His power and the power of his voice are stated repeatedly but the few times he shows up there is a real weakness. The film has vastly improved on his strength and created a Saruman that far exceeds my imagination in venom and charisma. In summary, I think the great characterization of major players is well worth the expense of the likes of Glorfindel and Bombadil. Now, it may seem that I am bashing Tolkien in my defense of the movie but... well maybe I am and I'm sorry. It's not that I'm a JRRT detractor or don't love his works. It's just that I have experienced lots of different fiction and seen it adapted and frequently characters and dramatics are slighted in a condensed form. Here, that is not the case at all. Not that LOTR is not a staggeringly fantastical work of imaginative power, it's just that... well, Faulkner it ain't.
Rating:
Summary: An astonishing masterpiece.
Review: Considered both as fantasy adventure and as an adaptation of a beloved literary classic, Peter Jackson's film of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" sets new standards for cinematic excellence. Everything about this film feels exactly right, from the casting to the screenplay to the special effects. The last are amazing, putting to shame anything George Lucas has come up with, and yet they always serve to advance the story; unlike Lucas, there's never any hint that Jackson is merely playing with his toys. Jackson shows great respect for Tolkien's text, but not slavish devotion. Certain characters--such as the lovable Tom Bombadil and Frodo's poisonous Aunt Lobelia--are missing, and Tolkien would be chagrined to find that the little poems and songs he loved to write are nowhere quoted. But if Jackson gives short shrift to Tolkien's whimsy, he more than makes up for that by giving us Tolkien's intensity, pathos and moral vision absolutely undiluted. Above all, Jackson never forgets that Tolkien's chief emphasis was always on the characters he created. Jackson casts wonderful actors to play those characters and--again unlike Lucas--he actually allows them to give performances. How wonderful to find the great Sir Ian McKellen, a uniquely commanding and charismatic actor, as Gandalf, or the charming and touching Elijah Wood as Frodo. You can go straight down the list--Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Sean Astin as Sam, Ian Holm as Bilbo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel--and find nothing but perfection. This is one of the very few big-budget blockbusters that unqualifiedly deserves its success, and all we can do now is look forward with excitement to the release of "The Two Towers" in 2002 and "The Return of the King" in 2003. Like the books they came from, these three fillms will be cherished by future generations.
Rating:
Summary: An astonishing masterpiece.
Review: Considered both as fantasy adventure and as an adaptation of a beloved literary classic, Peter Jackson's film of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" sets new standards for cinematic excellence. Everything about this film feels exactly right, from the casting to the screenplay to the special effects. The last are amazing, putting to shame anything George Lucas has come up with, and yet they always serve to advance the story; unlike Lucas, there's never any hint that Jackson is merely playing with his toys. Jackson shows great respect for Tolkien's text, but not slavish devotion. Certain characters--such as the lovable Tom Bombadil and Frodo's poisonous Aunt Lobelia--are missing, and Tolkien would be chagrined to find that the little poems and songs he loved to write are nowhere quoted. But if Jackson gives short shrift to Tolkien's whimsy, he more than makes up for that by giving us Tolkien's intensity, pathos and moral vision absolutely undiluted. Above all, Jackson never forgets that Tolkien's chief emphasis was always on the characters he created. Jackson casts wonderful actors to play those characters and--again unlike Lucas--he actually allows them to give performances. How wonderful to find the great Sir Ian McKellen, a uniquely commanding and charismatic actor, as Gandalf, or the charming and touching Elijah Wood as Frodo. You can go straight down the list--Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Sean Astin as Sam, Ian Holm as Bilbo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel--and find nothing but perfection. This is one of the very few big-budget blockbusters that unqualifiedly deserves its success, and all we can do now is look forward with excitement to the release of "The Two Towers" in 2002 and "The Return of the King" in 2003. Like the books they came from, these three fillms will be cherished by future generations.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Box Office
Review: Considered by many to be one of the greatest visual epics of our time, The Lord of the Rings is one of my all-time favorite movies. All of the performances stand out, especially Ian Mckellan as Gandalf and Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn; both of these actors throw themselves into their roles. The movie also adds parts that would have been helpful to read in the book, for instance, the fight between Gandalf and Saruman. The Lord of the Rings delivers excellent battle sequences, such as Aragorn vs. the black riders and when the fellowship takes on 50 orcs in the mines of Moria. This movie also features cinematography of New Zealand mountains, rivers, waterfalls, and forests that blow all other movies away. See this movie!
Rating:
Summary: Compelling and thoughtful
Review: Considering the amount of detail and background that "The Lord of the Rings" books encompasses, the film might have suffered a "Dune"-like outcome: too much drama crammed into too little time. Happily, Peter Jackson's movie proves that theory wrong (at least here), and delights the Tolkien reader with visuals to match the imagination. All the characters are well-acted. Gandalf's role as wizard and protector of the Shire comes across strongly in Ian McKellen's lined face. Viggo Mortensen does a fine job with Aragorn, the Ranger and future king - he's neither creepy nor too-heroic, but rather a man struggling with the weight of Middle-Earth's battles and legends. Elijah Wood deserves an Oscar simply for giving us Frodo Baggins in the flesh: all wide eyes and simple hobbit determination. I thought Cate Blanchett was a great Galadriel - although played a bit too mystical, as if there was a ouija board hidden in her robes. The visuals are stunning. Middle-Earth is as real as our own world (thanks to New Zealand) and the landscape changes dramatically with each chapter. Even invented scenery (Moria, the mallorn trees of Lorien) are convincing. The orcs are suitably horrible, and the Balrog (my favorite) is exactly the flame-and-shadow apparition that Tolkien described. One quibble: the music gets too much. The film needn't have had the same overblown score that every epic predictably offers. It occurred to me while watching it on DVD that the sound of Middle-Earth should be as unique as its appearance. Or better still, ease back on the violins occasionally and horns and let us hear the world that Tolkien described. Another irksome detail was Liv Tyler's exaggerated role in "The Fellowship of the Ring." Arwen did not fight off the Nazgûl at Bruinen Ford. That was Elrond (with Gandalf's help) in the form of a foaming flood. Anyway, the film is worth watching repeatedly. If the second and third installments are as good as this, it'll be a classic.
Rating:
Summary: A Truely Amazing Effort
Review: Considering the difficulty of these books, it would be a monumental task in bringing them to the screen. In my opinion Peter Jackson has done it and done it well, at least in the first installment.
The acting - for the most part - is good and he did well in choosing Ian Mckellern as Gandalf. The film takes you to a breath-taking middle earth - Well New Zealand actually - and the dialogue is only slightly contaminated with modern phrases. The action is good, and time is taken to build up plot and characters. Jackson evidently has great love for the
books and it shows. This is a labour of love and dedication.
You could do a lot worse than buy this film - see in at the cinema if you can , it blows your head off - I look forward to parts 2 & 3 with anticipation.
Viewers who are not familiar with the books should be warned that this is the 1st installment of a trilogy, a trilogy that was originally meant to be one book by the author but was broken up by the publisher. So be warned, the film does not have a 'traditional' ending; but it does not suffer for this, in fact I found it refreshing from the normal hollywood three act "fast food films". This however is not to everyones taste.
It was no mean task to convince the studios to part with 270 million dollars to create a nine hour film AND stay true to the spirit of the book. In my opinion he deserves an oscar just for that. So instead of 4 stars I gave 5.
|
