Rating: 
Summary: How can a film so beautiful be so Boring!
Review: (Okay, I realize that Tolkien fans are vicious and do not take kindly to dissenting opinions, but hear me out....)
Do not go see this movie without having prior knowledge of the books and the Third Earth world created by Tolkien. This film's storytelling does not stand on its own to the "brillance" others have deemed it to be.
The cinematography is breathtaking, the sound editting is wonderful, the acting is mostly decent.....but I kept looking at my watch for most of the movie. There are a few wonderful and intriguing scenes, but they come too far apart and elements of suspense, intrigue, and adventure are not pursued as much as they should be.
Sure, Third Earth may have been the basis and forefather of Fantasy since; but like there wouldnt be a Star Wars without a 2001....doesnt mean that 2001 is more enjoyable to the majority of todays' audiences.
Also, do NOT take children to see this film...its also not necessary a fun "date movie" either unless you are both role playing gamers into this world. If you want a magical world easy to enjoy that captures wonder...go see a nice fun movie that stands on its own like Harry Potter. LOTR requires repeat viewings and/or seeing the entire trilogy of films (aha! brilliant marketing strategy!) for it to really mean anything.
Rating: 
Summary: The Movie of the Century
Review: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, based off of the classic J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy, turns Tolkien's words into a magical adventure that captures your attention and keeps you hooked. It is one of the few films worth going back to see multiple times in the theater. There is a high chance it can be the movie event of the century.
Rating:
Summary: TO TRANSLATE IS TO BETRAY----OR IS IT???
Review: Surely if Tolkien were alive today he would have argued against the making of this film, fearing that something would be lost in the translation. But Tolkien is dead, the films have been made, and the verdict is out: The Fellowship of the Ring is a GREAT movie. This is what fantasy fans have been waiting for: A good storyline, believable characters, wonderful scenery, and god-grand battle scenes. For the uninitiated in fantasy, there is no need to fear, as the beginning of the movie does give a brief but accurate synopsis as to what has gone on before and how the Ring came to be. Approximately three hours in length, the movie is admittedly long, but one has to be able to appreciate how Peter Jackson was able to tell a 400+ page story in that amount of time, and tell it WELL, at that. The movie does have its slow parts, but this is not so much Jackson's fault as it was Tolkien's. I, personally, found the book The Fellowship of the Ring to be a little slow and boring. In fact, if I rated the book right now, I'd probably give it only 3.5 to 4 stars (out of 5). If there are any slow or boring parts in this movie, it's because Jackson was trying to stick as true to Tolkien's vision as reasonably possible. If you look on the internet, you'll see lots of artwork that is very similar to the movie. For example, doesn't the cover art on the paperback version of The Lays of Beleriand look like the inspiration for Sauron's costume at the beginning of the movie? "To translate is to betray", the Italian Proverb goes, but with this movie, Peter Jackson has joined the ranks of the few that have proved that proverb wrong.
Rating: 
Summary: A Worthy Effort
Review: First of all, let me say that I am a huge fan of J.R.R. Tolkien, so many of my remarks here may not be of that much interest to those of you who aren't. There's a lot that director Peter Jackson got right in his adaptation of Tolkien's classic novel. The thing that strikes the viewer right away is how absolutely stunning the film is visually: in visual effects, art direction, set design, even in little details like the way the hobbits' hair is done, Jackson and his colleagues are right on the money. The casting, pretty much to a man and a woman, is spot on. Elijah Wood, as Frodo, is a particularly inspired choice, hitting just the right balance between innocence and wisdom that I think Tolkien had in mind for the character. Most importantly, Jackson gets the tone right. Tone, as anyone who has ever tried to create any kind of narrative work will tell you, is a tricky thing, and Lord Of The Rings' balance between humor and darkness is particularly hard to catch. However, in everything from little narrative details (for example, when Bilbo (Ian Holm) addresses "Proudfoots" at his birthday party, and a hobbit in the audience shoots back "ProudFEET!", just like in the book) to the big, bittersweet ending, Jackson is right on the mark. Now then, the kvetches. The film's big failing, in my mind, is its lack of suspense in the first half - that is to say, its failure to take advantage of opportunities to build suspense. In the book, as those of you who've read it will recall, we don't know what's happened to Gandalf from the time Frodo and company leave Hobbiton until they reach Rivendell. The tension is ratcheted up as the reader wonders, "Where's Gandalf? What could possibly be detaining such a powerful being?" In the film, however, Jackson blows his wad by depicting the events of Gandalf's journey simultaneously with the events of Frodo & Co.'s journey to Rivendell. Big mistake. Another issue is (you knew this was coming, didn't you?) Jackson's use of the Arwen character(Liv Tyler). I didn't have as much of a problem with this as some did, but his usage of her as uber-elf-chick/gratuitous hottie is somewhat annoying. Perhaps Jackson thought Fellowship was a bit testosterone-heavy and needed a strong female character for balance: if so, he is directed to read the work of Conan creator Robert E. Howard posthaste. In sum: Despite its failings, FOTR is still pretty great. If you're interested in it enough to have read this far, you should definitely see it (in a theater, if possible - I can't think of another film since Mel Gibson's Braveheart that benefited as much from big-screen viewing). But please, please, PLEASE read the books first: Tolkien was possibly, with the exception of Joyce, the most insanely brilliant English-language writer of the 20th century, and needs to be read. No cinematic depiction of his work will ever match movies he makes in the reader's mind.
Rating:
Summary: A must see
Review: The best epic film ever made.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent film
Review: I saw this film with two people who never read the trilogy. They both loved it as did I. I'm going to do something that I normally do not do - I'm going to go watch this movie again.
Rating:
Summary: no words!
Review: This is certainly the best i mean the best movie i have
ever seen in my life.
no words just run to the theaters.
Rating: 
Summary: high hopes, but.....
Review: I had high hopes for this movie, but after watching it have to say I was a little disappointed. I think that perhaps it took too long getting started. I always thought that the first part of the book was pretty boring...why not start the film when they were leaving the shire instead of adding all that about the birthday party? It would have detracted nothing and instead allowed more time for scenes such as when frodo is stabbed by the ring wraiths. In the book that part is full of tension, but in the film there was nothing and it seemed over in a instant. More character development would have been good as well, although Sean Bean and the rest of the cast did an excellent job with the script. All in all I think that now the story is underway the next two installments will be MUCH better. The landscapes, the special effects and the battles were all brilliant - it just left me feeling that it could have been handled better. Perhaps the team responsible for star wars would have been better working on it?
Rating:
Summary: Simply Amazing!!!
Review: Peter Jackson did a great job bringing the timeless classic, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, to the big screen. With the exception of a few scenes throughout the three hour film, it delivered with remarkable precision to the novel. I have seen the film 4 times and I don't plan on stopping. I highly suggest that you buy that nine dollar ticket (i know, pricing is getting out of hand) and allow to eyes to witness the greatest beauty that is THE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Far better than I expected
Review: I just saw this movie in the theater and was happily surprised at how good it was. Considering how many ways a live action version of this story could go wrong, director Peter Jackson and his cast do an excellent job. It covers the first book of the trilogy quite well and the visuals/special effects are often stunning. Even at three hours, there are plenty of details and subplots that fall by the wayside (Cate Blanchett has very little to do and Tom Bombadil is missing in action). All in all the film is beautiful to watch and you get a very good idea of the main thrust of the Tolkien novel. I especially enjoyed Sir Ian McKellan as Gandalf and Elijah Wood as Frodo. They do a great job in a very tricky roles, and they add an emotional core to this film that is missing in far too many fantasy films. For once Hollywood did not screw it up.
|
