Rating: 
Summary: Wow is the only word.
Review: Could this be the best movie released in 2001? I think it is. It is true to the book, all except for the beginning. It starts out from the middle of the book, considering all of the back-stories to coincide with it. The characters were portrayed very accurately, and all the ingenious speech is included. Of course, the movie has scenes that were and were not in the book, as well as some of them deleted from it also. The computer graphics used were tremendous and most awesome. Of many people, it left me in awe, which is a little unusual for a big budget film. The ending was awesome, and anyone who had not even heard of the trilogy could tell that there was going to be more to it than just "Fellowship of the Ring".
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings Movie in Comparison to the Book
Review: Cristy Cepeda
1st Period
English 1
December 1, 2002 Final Essay: The Fellowship of the Ring ~~~There are several scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring that are left out in the production of the movie. While many of us understand that the movie could not possibly include every scene of the book for it resulting in being very, very long, there are still people who would have liked a few more scenes included in the movie. I am one of those people. While I was reading The Fellowship of the Ring, whether it being because I was just getting started or because it was the longest section, I felt the whole journey between the Shire and the Prancing Pony was very long, in the movie the hobbits seem to breeze through it. One of the reasons this happens is the obvious absence of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. The director may have assumed that since Tom never reappears in the series he is not an important character, yet I feel this was a big part of the start of the adventure. Another scene missing is when Galadriel gives each member of the fellowship a gift. These gifts become important later and I feel the scene should have been included. Other scenes not included are the encounter with Farmer Maggot, the Barrow Wights and getting of the swords.
~~~A controversial topic regarding the transformation of the book into a movie include whether the director kept the feeling of the original book. I have input on both sides of the topic but am not glued exactly to one spot or point. On one side he did not because of the fast pace of the movie, it seems like you are never watching the same scene for more than twenty seconds, excluding Bilbo's party. The book gives a very full and complete description of everything, which was a bit left out in the movie. The special effects with music and lighting make the book a bit "high tech" while the books, having existed for more than 50 years, I'm sure were not written with huge effects in mind, but of a long rough adventure with determined characters. On the other hand, the movie is being made now, in the 21st century, and thus giving the books the privlige of being made with good graphics, locations and lighting as opposed to it being produced thirty years ago. Movies now are also more appealing to the audience of those demonstaring the effects as are used in The Fellowhip of the Ring..
~~~Prior to writing this essay I have read many artices written about the movie The Fellowship of the Ring and it appears that the audience has mixed feeling about the production of The Fellowship of the Ring, though most of the ones that I read proved to positively critique the film. I chose two of the articles that pretty much agreed with me to use as references. One quote at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00003CWT6/ref=ase_ringzonenet/104-5923720-1372713 written by Miles D. Moore from Alexandria, VA USA quotes, "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" showing that the transformation from book to movie was successful, similarly agreeing to the view of BBC News's Jackie Finlay quote of "Would it [the story] be tacky if "made flesh, brought into the realms of the every day - or worse, of Hollywood? But director Peter Jackson avoids almost all of the traps to deliver a powerful, intense and beautifully realized movie that interprets the novel - well, almost to perfection." at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/reviews/1702177.stm . In conclusion, the transformation of the book into a movie is brilliantly done and deserves the congrats of all viewers, whether Lord of the Rings fan or not. Well, Ms.B, I got this posted on the internet, now did I really deserve a 70% for incorrectly put citations? I think content is what's important.
Rating:
Summary: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Review: Critics are calling "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a phenomenal movie! It is the winner of six Film Critics Choice Awards, five Bafta Awards, two MTV Movie Awards, and four Academy Awards. "This is the best, yet most magnificent, movie of the year", says the critics at Time Magazine. And "This is a wonderful, yet phenomenal, movie that anyone can enjoy", says the critics at Chicago Tribune. Only one movie this year has wowed audiences and critics across the globe; and that's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring".
Rating:
Summary: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Review: Critics are calling "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a phenomenal movie! It is the winner of six Film Critics Guild Awards, five Bafta Awards, two MTV Movie Awards, and four Academy Awards. "This is the best, yet most magnificent, movie of the year", says the critics at Time Magazine. And "This is a wonderful, yet phenomenal, movie that anyone can enjoy", says the critics at Chicago Tribune. Only one movie this year has wowed audiences and critics across the globe; and that's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring".
Rating:
Summary: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Review: Critics are calling "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a phenomenal movie! It is the winner of three Film Critics Choice Awards, four Bafta Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, and four Academy Awards. "This is the best, yet most magnificent, movie of the year", says the critics at Time Magazine. And "This is a wonderful, yet phenomenal, movie that anyone can enjoy", says the critics at Chicago Tribune. Only one movie this year has wowed audiences and critics across the globe; and that's "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring".
Rating: 
Summary: An awesome movie, but...
Review: Critics everywhere have heralded Jackson's Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring as a visual masterpiece. And truly, it is. The sets are wonderfully done, every detail is there. The movie stays very true to the book, except for a few understandable omissions (the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil) and Arwen's role is considerably more important. The actors fit perfectly in their characters. I cannot help but quote Orlando Bloom who said he always believed elves "moved like alert cats". So why is there a but? Let me just say that, aside from the movie, the extra material in this DVD fall short of my expectations. I wonder why the New Line company had to make three different DVD versions of this film, when two could have sufficed. All in all, I believe that the edited scenes are cruelly absent in this version, and that I regret not waiting for the special edition DVD. If you're still hesitating on which DVD to buy, be more patient than I was and wait til November.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Film
Review: Definately a movie to add to your collection, this one you can watch over and over. The lands, the creatures, it's all so easy to get lost there. If only the Shire was real...
Rating: 
Summary: stupid
Review: Definitely the most overrated movie ever.
One of the most boring films I have seen. I felt embarrassed sitting in the theater watching it. This film is childish, mindless and pointless. Old good versus evil blah blah blah. I think we have seen that before. Stay away from it if you want too see more intelligent movies out there in the future.
Heavenly creatures was great though. I can't believe Peter Jackson made it.
Rating:
Summary: Extraordinary Filmmaking
Review: Dejected fans aside, this film is an extraordinary example of filmmaking. Director Peter Jackson has not only chosen a talented cast, but a stunning design and production team. The film is pure artistry: the detail put into every single facet of every single part of the film stands up to close scrutiny, and lends a credibility and verisimilitude to Middle-Earth and its characters that allows this film to transcend the boundaries stereotypically set for the 'fantasy' genre.
The performances are perfectly spellbinding, and one never feels that a character moves forward in his journey simply because the story compels him to. Ian McKellan's performance as Gandalf is simply enthralling, he has an elegance and poise that are very important to maintaining balance in the story. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin's performances as Frodo and Sam, respectively; are so thorough and so utterly...human that their intimate friendship never strays into the realm of the cliche. Sam is ultimately the hero of the film, and his performance is quite heart-wrenching. Other characters with notable performances include: Aragorn, Legolas, Merry, and Saruman.
As music is a sine qua non of excellent filmmaking, it is only expected that the music for 'Lord of the Rings' be given such full and complete consideration. Howard Shore does brilliant things musically that will please both the musically learned and unlearned. For example, take the Isengard theme: here Shore writes in 5/4 time, which musicians know to never feel quite regular. This slightly off-rythm time signature makes the Isengard theme suspenseful and foreboding, mirroring the industrial age which it heralds. Also consider the Rohan theme from 'The Two Towers.' Here Shore uses a Norwegian fiddle to perfectly capture the Norse character of Edoras and the Rohan kingdom. One particularly effective device of Shore's that I like very much is his use of a boy's choir to illustrate the most important aspect of the ring: its seductive power. By using the fragile but beautifully delicate sound of boys' voices, Shore provides a connection to the fragile nature of the world of Middle-Earth and the creatures who seek the ring.
Though requiring a serious time commitment to watch, the 'Lord of the Rings' is an achievement in film that no-one should miss.
Rating:
Summary: As Good as anyone could have made it
Review: Despite being an avid AD&D role player, and able to write it, I am not a fan of fantasy literature. I have owned one of the many collected printings of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but have never been able to get more than a hundred pages into it before Tolkien's dry writing style got to me and I would put it down in order to read some Heinlein, Smith or Niven instead. Thus when I found out that Peter Jackson, the same man who brought us such epic splatter-fests as Bad Taste, Brain Damage, and Meet the Feebles, had begun production on the entire trilogy, I was curious. The only person to have ever attempted this before, Ralph Bakshi, had made a mockery of Tolkien's books with his half baked attempts to render them to the big screen. Jackson on the other hand, even when he was making his gross out movies, had always been a brilliant technical director and I began to wonder how he would handle a project of this magnitude. While I was eager to see the end results, I didn't have the sort of emotional investment that so many Tolkien readers have. I have friend who have read the trilogy over and over so I was curious as to what his responses would be. There are also those fans who, no matter how good the film(s) would be, no matter how exacting they were, would hate them, either just because or just because it didn't fit their vision of what it should like. Or even because they feel that they should never be made into movies. What Jackson has done here is something special and I don't just mean in the technical sense. It became clear to me that he had taken great care to surround himself with craftsmen and artists who understood the books, he even went so far as to hire the two artists who had conceived so much of the later book art to craft much of the three film's final look. Having now seen the movie several times and reading through the first of the many art books, I can honestly say I doubt anyone else could have done a better job at bringing it to the big screen. The Fellowship story is rather simple, but it's epic on a grand scale. Three thousand years ago, during the first age, the Dark Lord Sauron, servant of the Morgoth, had forged 19 rings of power and leadership, 3 for the elves, 7 seven for the dwarfs, and 9 to the race of men- all of the rings were controlled by a 20th ring, forged from metal from all of the others. With this ring Sauron could rule all of Middle Earth. A last alliance of men and elves raised an army and at the foot of Mount Doom, near Sauron's fortress of Barador, defeated the Dark Lord and his army. And it was here that Isildur took up his father's sword and sliced the ring from Sauron's hand, defeating the Enemy. While I felt the opening battle sequence could have been longer, it firmly ingrains the might and power wielded by Sauron. What it doesn't show is Sauron is just a pawn of Morgoth? Who is Morgoth? Read the Silmarillion and find out. As history fades to legend then legend into myth, the ring of power passes from Isildur's after he is slain, lost for centuries until it is found by the creature Golem, the magic of the ring extending his life for five-hundred years until he loses the ring and it is found by the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. Enter Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), a wizard who learns from Bilbo that he has The One Ring. However, after his 111th birthday party, Bilbo uses the ring to render himself invisible after a speech, then retreats to his home to gather his things. He has kept it a secret for sixty years until he decides that he tired of everything, simply wanting to finish a book he is writing in peace and quiet. He leaves everything, including the ring, to his nephew Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), then departs to live out his days with the elves. It then falls to Frodo to bring it to Sauron's realm of Mordor and cast it into the fires of Mount Doom, for that is the only way it can be destroyed. There is more, but I won't attempt to lay it all out for you here- buy it, rent it, but SEE IT. My favorite character is probably Legolas (Orlando Bloom), even though he didn't have a whole lot to say, I liked the portrayal of the elven archer as being a total nightmare to anyone on the receiving end of his bow shots. Legolas does no less than 8 god-like trick shots as well as using arrows as melee weapons. He is also the only Tolkien elf that I can stomach. I much prefer the idea that elves are happy-go-lucky types living for the moment, not the doom and gloom sourpuss elves who are leaving the land- a concept that several fantasy authors since have emulated and why I think so many people dislike elves. Sean Bean's Boromir is likeable as the tragic self-sacrificing knight and Viggo Mortenson as the hell-on-wheels Ranger, Aragorn. More importantly, I loved the easy affection shared by the hobbits, and Gandalf's love for these peaceful folk. Still, I have to laugh at those so-called 'Tolkien Devotees' who scream and wale about what an 'atrocity' or 'abomination' has been wrought by Jackson. One reviewer was aghast at the concept of a playful elf. Yeah, let them all be miserable and depressing. And because people may have actually liked this film, they have to become personally insulting. So what if he didn't follow the Fellowship chapter and verse as it was written, there is such a thing as artistic license in this world or does it only apply to whatever medium you happen to be touting. Who cares if Arwen had a sword and washed away the Ring Wraiths with a spell? Maybe you can devote 5 years of your life and two-hundred million dollars of your own money and make the trilogy only you can enjoy. I'm sure having Ian McKellan on screen for twenty hours as he reads the book to the audience would be infinitely more exciting.
|
