Rating: 
Summary: Too Much Hype
Review: I went to this movie expecting "the best movie of the year" but I unfortunately got "The most hyped movie of the year". Sure there were some dead guys chasing the Hobbit trying to steal a ring (sounds real exciting doesnt it), but I think I laughed at parts not intended for laughing... The movie is 3 hours long on top of that, at the end of the film I proclaimed that I would very much want to be thrown into that volcano with that stupid ring than sit through the other 2 sequels. So save yourself the cash and the rear sore from sitting so long, and buy yourself the book instead. Unless that isnt worth reading, I wouldnt know because I never read it, I wasted enough of my time watching the movie. That is why this movie gets 2 stars, for my 2 chuckles I had during the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: An Almost Flawless Interpretation
Review: Peter Jackson has himself said that any movie would only be an interpretation of this book, and he has made a grand interpretation. I didn't always agree with *his* interpretation but I did enjoy it and it was an extraordinary movie.
First of all, it was not boring, which is a plus for any movie. When people had to leave the theater to go to the bathroom, they dashed out and ran back in, so they wouldn't miss anything.
I was, like almost every other Tolkien fan, apprehensive about the movie but from the moment it began, I was caught up in the flow. The seventeen year gap between Frodo's leaving the Shire and the Birthday Party was cut out, but I can understand that. There were some clever references from both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit there, which I thought was excellently done.
I had qualms about Arwen's part in the movie, but she was well-done. Sure, she did wield a sword, but she didn't use it. Her romance with Aragorn was enlarged, and that was one improvement on the book.
The actors were wonderful. Ian McKellen (Gandalf) and Elijah Wood (Frodo) both deserve Oscars for their performances; Viggo Mortensen (Strider/Aragorn) and Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) also impressed me. All of the actors acted with more than their lines; they used their whole bodies to convey things.
The sets were magnificent also. They began working on them in the early 90's or so and it shows. The Rivendell and Hobbiton sets awed me. They looked real and the New Zealand landscape *was* Middle-earth.
I thought Lothlorien was good, but I would have preferred it to be lighter and seen the elanor and niphredil flowers. That would have been my interpretation, but I was amaazed by the detail and beauty of everything--Galadriel's swan boat was gorgeous.
I did have a few gripes, however, but they did not impact my enjoyment of the film and these are the only things I wish had been included:
Gimli and Galadriel's conversations and her gift to him.
The gift-giving in Lothlorien and her showing Frodo Nenya, the Ring of Adamant. I didn't like Gimli's portrayal overmuch, but I hope that it will improve in the next film--which I will be going to see! Over all, I enjoyed the movie wholeheartedly. It is an excellent cinematic experience...and I plan to see it again a couple times as well as buy the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: A worthy film version of a classic fantasy
Review: Fanboys and girls of the anal-retentive sort need not apply. Really, I'm serious here. Don't go if you're going to whine about how this word got changed or that character is no longer in the story, because you'll drive yourself and everyone around you mad within about ten minutes. I also say this because I want to make a point about the difference between a novel and a film, a difference that a lot of people never seem to grasp. While some folks might want to see a twelve or fifteen hour mini-series in which we watch every step out of the Shire, every meal and listen to every talking head at the council of Elrond, the audience, even among true fans would be very limited. What reads well does not always film well and vice versa. Decisions were made and for the most part I think they were made well. Cutting Tom Bombadil was very sensible, IMO, since there's almost no way to film him without turning him (at best) into one of those quaint, goofy characters you find in so many monster movies of the thirties and early forties. At worst...well there wouldn't be a dry seat in the house. Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen on the flight to Rivendell was an excellent choice because it lets us see an Arwen who is not only her father's daughter but a worthy mate for Aragorn. And Glorfindel never appears again so what's really lost? These choices make good dramatic sense, and for better or worse, a filmmaker has to think along dramatic lines not literary ones. It's true that I wish more time could have been given to some things, but I also believe that it's possible that many of these issues will be used to good dramatic advantage in the second and third films. As to the film that is, as opposed to the one that might have been, I have a tremendous amount of admiration for Peter Jackson and his crew for having pulled off what I thought would be an almost impossible task. They've made a film which, while it remains true to the spirit of the book, is very accessible. The hard work shows here in every scene, though never intrusively. The sets just look right, they have an air of reality, of age and even decay. The casting is spot-on in most cases, and the casting of Elijah Wood as Frodo was masterful. I've never been a fan of his but I have nothing but admiration for the way he's played a very difficult role so far. The camera work can be a bit intense, I admit, rushing from sharp close-up to vast vista and back. It can be dizzying, especially if you're sitting towards the front of the theater. And some of the extreme close-ups (the ones which let you count the pores in people's noses) are overwhelming. But the lighting of the film is superb, with each choice having a meaning and setting the mood perfectly. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to any fantasy that includes non-human creatures, is how those creatures come across. I found the choices pretty consistently good. The Orcs are almost a textbook illustration of the word "abomination" so when Sauruman recounts the story of how they were orginally created from captive Elves, you see the resemblance, and it becomes all that much more awful. The Balrog, which could have been merely laughable, was genuinely fearsome. (Here comes something the Orcs are afraid of; we are in deep trouble!) Frankly, it would take a much longer review to do justice to this film. The best I can say to you is this: If you're not a rigid purist, then go. Enjoy it. Don't feel even remotely guilty for liking what's up there on the screen. It's a good film and that's the best we could have hoped for. If you're new to the story, you may find yourself a bit lost from time to time, but it shouldn't be a bar to enjoying the film. And perhaps you'll decide to read the book afterwards. Either way, think of the film and the book as complimentary entities, the one informing the other. You can enjoy either or both if you can set aside expectations and concentrate on what is there on the screen for us. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Five stars until the end . . .
Review: The first installment of The Lord of the Rings trilogy is fantastically realized, lushly shot, and as intense as a three hour movie can get. Elijah Wood is convincing as Frodo Baggins,the good-natured and stout-hearted hobbit who unwillingly comes into the possession of the ring tht can rule the world. Ian McKellan portrays a wise and kindly Gandalf with so much humanity that the viewer needs him as much as Frodo does. The other actors likewise inhabit their roles with confidence, although none quite as distinctively. The scenery, both manufactured and real (shot in New Zealand), serves as a convincing Middle Earth. Even the music contributes powerfully to the overall effect (save a "Titanic"-like flute piece to accompany a water scene near the end.) So why only four stars? Because this utterly accomplished film fails to deliver any kind of resolution. I understand this is but one of three movies already shot; still, I strongly believe each should be able to stand on its own as a separate work. Otherwise, it's a nine hour movie to be released over three years. Even though the action itself could not be resolved, there should have been some kind of emotional resolution to give the viewer a firm sense of why it ended where it did. Instead, the credits start rolling after perhaps one of the most banal lines of the entire three hours. I wasn't the only person in the theater to say, "Is that ALL?" Even so, this is a movie not to be missed. Once all three films are available, you will be glad to have seen the first installment. People have compared this to "Harry Potter", also released this season, but "The Fellowship of the Ring" aims for, and achieves, a much higher level of film making. (Parents note: This movie is not for elementary school children, even those accustomed to violent fare. The intensity of evil and fear can be nearly overwhelming.)
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I went to this movie expecting that the movie makers would take liberties with the plot and character's personalities. They always try to "improve" the original. I had heard of the changes made to Arwen's character, but I was totally unprepared for the corruption of the other personalities as well. For anyone who is an ardent fan of the Lord of the Ring trilogy, I would think they would be very unhappy with how this interpretation was handled. The only positive comments I can make are that 1) the film locations were very good; 2) that the special effects were also very good; and 3) the "nationalites" of the characters were accurate. At least they didn't make Gandalf an elf or Bilbo a dwarf. Other than that, I feel that the screenwriters must have only read the crib notes for The Lord of the Rings, or they read it with one eye closed! No one could have read this magnificent creation and so badly missed the meanings and character's relationships! Gandalf was depicted as almost senile; Aragorn was a confused, unfocused wimp; Elrond was cast as a mean-spirited and bitter host not inclined to be of any help; Frodo a gutless wonder; Galedriel as a sinister "witch"; and poor Bilbo was a witless old hobbit. The roles of Merry and Pippin were also badly presented. Granted, they are young hobbits, but they didn't deserve to be made into thieves who "accidentally" got involved in the Fellowship. The film missed so much of the internal workings of minds and hearts that Tolkein bestowed on his characters. I realize that the book had too much to be put in a reasonably-timed film, but to go so completely away from the "heart" of the story is sad and very disappointing. Don't go to this film thinking it represents an accurate telling of the original story.
Rating:
Summary: A Long-Expected Party
Review: Being a huge fan of the LOTR book(s) and having now seen the "Fellowship Of The Ring" several times, I thought I'd make some personal comments on the movie. For starters, I think it's absolutely great and that Peter Jackson deserves high praise for accomplishing such a difficult job of bringing this classic book to film. Here are some of the best (and worst) features of the movie: THE BEST
- Any and all parts with Bilbo Baggins: Iam Holm puts in a very strong performance as Bilbo. I found both his scenes - in Hobbiton and Rivendell to, unexpectedly, be among the most moving in the film. Whether it's due to Holm's superb acting skills or Bilbo's small but critical importance in the whole story, the "Bilbo" scenes are among my favorites. Alot also probably has to do with the fact that Bilbo's scenes are very true to the book with much actual Tolkien dialog which incidentally, proves to make all parts of the film better. - Race Relations: Not socially, but PHYSICALLY. The most subtle but perhaps best special effect in the whole movie was in keeping the relative physical sizes between humans, elves, hobbits and dwarves right. It made the casting choices (all excellent, without exception) for all the characters based on their abilities and not on their real life sizes and shapes. Truly remarkable and best of breed effects. - Hobbiton: An incredibly beautiful place done perfectly to the book. The "long expected party" scenes had all the wonderful book references including: fireworks, Bilbo's going away comments, Gandalf's discussions with Bilbo and Frodo, whimsical moments smoking pipeweed, fire runes on the ring and much more. These early and quickly forgotten scenes eventually become (as in the book) something that you start to nostalgically think back about and miss. - The Council Of Elrond: I always wondered how such a critical part of the story where most of the fellowship members (and their personal stories) are introduced and where the fate of the ring is decided, could possibly be done in less than 45 minutes and without being boring. Jackson unbelievably pulled it off in 5 minutes. Gandalf's story was unneeded having already been seen as it occured. Boramir, appropriately got the most of the discussion time. Elrond handled the whole thing well and Frodo had his moment too. Unfortunately, Legolas and Gimli were given short shrift in the scene but, who knows - it may all work out in the end. Even Sam got his comical moment, just as in the book. - Calhaderas And Saruman: The snow scenes on Calhaderas, while short were very dramatic and Saruman's conjouring of the storm against the fellowship was spine-tinglingly awesome. - Moria: Such a critical point in the story. All the key points were hit: the watcher's destruction of the west gate, Balin's tomb, the countless orcs, the cave troll and the discovery of Frodo's mithril coat, the discovery of gollum's persuit, the bridge of Kazad Dum, the balrog, Gandalf's fall and the extremely moving affect it had on the fellowship. All done to perfection. - Boramir: While some complain of the lack of character development of the fellowship members, the absolute minumum has seemingly been sucessfully accomplished with so many characters. Especially critical is Boromir. His story arc - altho abbreviated - played exactly as the story should: a warrior from Gondor looking to aquire the ring in Rivendell and his early competition with Aragorn, to his betrayal of Frodo and then his profound regret and heroic defense of Merry and Pippin followed by his "departure" after confessing to Aragorn. Very tragic and very sad. The memories of his scenes will carry thru to the next movies, as they properly should. IMPERFECTIONS
- Black Riders Too Loud: Some of the scenes with the black riders were just too screechingly loud. While such moments might make you want to cover your ears ( to save them) they didn't really strike you with fear. I would have prefered stronger visual frights. In general, the background sounds and music did frequently drown out character dialog. Gandalf and Aragorn in particular, had their sometimes mumbly voices get stepped on. - Whiplash Hobbiton to Rivendell: Alot was skipped much of it appropriately. The Bombadil and Barrow Downs and even Buckleberry scenes are, begrudgingly not all that critical. Severely narrowing down the Farmer Maggot scenes was actually quite well done altho I did miss the terror of The hobbit's hiding in the back of the farmer's wagon in the nite on the way to the bridge scene which was truncated to a simple hobbit-hop onto a raft. Oh well. Bree went by pretty quick and the black rider attack on empty hobbit beds scene was a bit overdone but I suppose the whole thing worked. I had always envisioned Weathertop to be a high, towering peak rather than the little dumpy mound of the movie but the rider attack worked well. Using Arwen a the method of getting Frodo to Rivendell, while very different from the book, actually worked and didn't bother this LOTR fanatic much at all. Battle Scene Confusion: Some of the battle scenes, while well choreographed and sprinkled with fine moments (like the Uruk Hi guy getting a knife jabbed in the leg by Aragorn to then pull it out and throw it at him and get deflected by Aragorn's sword) did get confusing at times. The camera seemed too close to the action making it hard to follow. This could have been done better. All in all - excellent. I figure we will have gotten the deep character development we're all looking for by the end of the second movie - which I figure will be the best of the 3. Can't wait.
Rating: 
Summary: Big Hype--Wasted 3 hours
Review: Lord of the Rings was a waste of 3 hours! The violent scenes with all sorts of monsters, grotesque figures, sword fights, dead creatures, and hard to follow dialogues gave me a headache. I thought that the movie would never end. As soon as you thought it was over, another terrible, loud, violent episode ensued. The entire story (which was ok) could have been told in an hour. It took almost that long for the drawn out, confusing introduction. If you came in late, there is no way you would even know what was happening.
Many scenes, like the 111th birthday party, were a waste of film. There were too many inconsistencies and the scenes seemed to be just thrown together. One scene did not flow into another. The actors were good; but the dialogue was tedious, boring and at times, difficult to hear and understand. The background music was too loud and distracting. The special effects were good; but why put every one of them in the same movie? It was almost like viewing a film school picture where they are trying everything they learned in the semester.
I cannot imagine taking kids to see this horror. They would have nightmares for weeks! I will definitely not see the next two episodes. ... wait for it to come out on video where you can fast-forward through the horror scenes that do not lend to the story.
Rating:
Summary: The best movie I have ever seen
Review: The Fellowship of the Ring was an excellent movie. It was probably one of the best I have ever seen. It follows the book very well. It also explains the movie for those who haven't read the book. I can't wait till it comes out on video. This is definately a classic movie that everyone should see!
Rating:
Summary: The Best
Review: If you loved Harry Potter, you will OBSESS over this movie. Lots of action and crazy moments. Things happen at the last moment and it's all great. About trust, loyalty, and above all bravery. Even if you've read the book (like myself), you're still surprised at every moment.The violence is tolerable and you don't have to look away. This movie makes you laugh, cry, and hold on to the end of your seat. It's too fantastic for words. A thousand times better than Harry Potter and taking that from me, an HP fanatic, this movie is just too cool. I think you should see it as soon as possible, it's VERY exciting.
Rating:
Summary: Phantom Menace can now be ignored & forgotten
Review: An experience that has equaled in satisfaction, as much as in its anticipation. The depiction of characters and world was refreshing and surprisingly justifying to the world and characters that J.R.T. created on printed ink. I feared that this movie would never do the written version justice. Phantom Menace, which played like a video game rather than an epic story - disappointed me on all fronts (in terms of creating a new epic tale). But the careful and well thoughout casting and dialogue in Lord of the Rings, for the numerous characters, has left me with a sweet taste, leaving behind Lucas' soured trilogy. Gandalf, Frodo and the Gondor heir are passionate and evoking in each of their focused scenes. The battles are amazing, and should be appreciated, both in their detail, gore and climatic nature. To criticise them would be narrow minded. The movie entertains while unfolding a clasic tale. (Bilbo was exactly what I imagined when my eyes would run over the text.) The Director has nailed it down. The most important part of retelling a story that in itself is already enjoyable, is CASTING, ACTING and CASTING and ACTING. And ACTING. The right people for the appropiate roles, is the product of a great line up of actors. This was what made the movie most enjoyable. Its not just about looks, but its also about delivery. And these bunch of Hollywood entertainers delivery in a big way. People who have not read the book, have told me that the story is great, aside from the characters and action. Thats a success in itself. Book to movie & movie to book depictions will always leave something desired. Lets just say that Lord of the Rings keeps these to a bare minimum. Those that criticise are sad and senile, unable to appreciate the purpose of the movie. The purpose to entertain while doing justice to JR.T's epic tale. I just hope they keep it up for the next two epsiodes. Focusing on the cast and acting, rather than the special effects or visual stims. George Lucas take note.
|
