*** Official "LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING" Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Bhagi Katbamna]

I saw it last night with my family.
Things that I liked:
The characters and story.
The settings and sets.
Things that could have been done better:
The wraiths
The battles(they seemed too much like Hercules/Zena type fights)
Gandalf vs. Balrog(too brief)
The orcs were pushovers.
Things that I really did not like:
The music(please, how about a moratorium on wailing celtic music, I have had enough)
:star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[PhilipG]

The Lord of the Rings
The Fellowship of the Rings
Second Review
Revised rating: ** out of *****
I had to see it again. I thought my first viewing was clouded by my expectations from the book, and I wanted another chance to appreciate the movie. My original review is on page 1 of this thread if you're interested.
And I got to see it at a better cinema: Screen 1 at the Odeon Marble Arch.
Sure enough, reading through my first review, I realize that I was overly critical on a couple of fronts.
The Music: Much, much better than I remembered; in fact the only piece I didn't like was the Hobbit tune (the one that sounds like Titanic).
The miscasting: Viggo Mortensen wasn't quite so objectionable as Aragorn second time around. He still doesn't seem to have the strength of presence that I would attribute the character, however.
So why have I downgraded my rating? It's because I realized something else:
This film lacks subtlety
The action is layed on as it happens; the audience is always privy to events, unlike Tolkien's book where the story revolves around the hobbits and what they are told. The hobbits are therefore reduced to mere secondary characters, along for the ride. We are given a token "Mummy" villain for the hero to kill at the end. Boromir almost has a sign around his neck saying "Don't Trust Me". Instead on relying on actors to act, CGI is used, most annoyingly with Galadriel when she is tested. There is no depth to the characters - depth that could have easily been added at no expense to running time by expanding the Lothlorien segment (poor Gimli/Legolas) and removing the pointless and dire extra scenes (such as the fireworks from the beginning, and the Elvish dialogue).
(One minor point that didn't "gel" with me (but may with others, who knows). While the buildings of Hobbiton looked excellently realized, the hobbits themselves didn't. They looked like pseudo-medieval actors, nothing more.)
But is all of this PJ's fault? Yes, as far as production goes, he played a big part. I'm sure the studio was also responsible for "Hollywood"-ising everything. Always better to overestimate the intelligence of the audience! This movie is about battles, about set pieces, about the grand highlights of what happened. But it is the little moments in the book that most enchanted me. Sam's affection for his pony, Bill, Gimli's meeting with Galadriel, Merry and Pippin having found out for themselves about the Ring, Gandalf's disappearance and messages to the companions (the letter at the inn, the marks at Weathertop), etc.
But d'you know what I think they should have done?
They should have made six films, not three
Tolkien's TLOTR is split into six. There is certainly enough material there for six 3-hr films. PJ could have used the extra time to flesh out the characters from the 2-D stereotypes in his movie, and re-insert strong scenes which should have been included (such as those with Farmer Maggot, and the attacks by the wolves).
I find it a little ironic that the same sort of criticism that I have applied here to TLOTR can be applied (and has been) to Lynch's movie of Frank Herbert's Dune, a film that I love to bits. Is it a factor that Lynch is a much better director? Well, he is in my book, but no, I don't think it's a factor. Lynch managed to keep much of the subtlety in the plot, and the cast were not reduced to playing stereotypes.
TLOTR is not very rewatchable. It was quite a struggle for me to see it again, I must admit. Is it a pacing problem? No, I don't think so. It's just that there aren't those "little moments" that for me makes watching and rewatching movies so interesting and enjoyable. Movies like Rushmore, which have depth and character, I can watch again and again without getting bored. With TLOTR, it's so shallow, I'd seen it all before.

 

[Howard Williams]

Can I offer just a few comments about this movie? First of all I never read any of the books. I knew absolutly nothing about the story or characters. I'm still not exactly sure what a Hobbit is. If that was explained in the movie, I missed it. I haven't read every single post here but my initial impression is that most people loved it. I did not love it. Visuals and audio were top notch, no doubt. Just from the size of the books even I could tell there's an aweful lot of story to tell here. I guess my biggest problems were with the story itself.

For example:

Why are only 9 "people" choosen to take on the most important quest in their world? Isn't it strange that of those nine, three were other hobbits with basically zero fighting experience or special powers that would help the mission succeed? The entire movie seemed to just follow one simple action sequence. Walk through some new teribble land full of incredible dangers, run when the danger presents itself, for whatever reason the danger can't quite get to you or they all barely escape by crossing a bridge, Frodo is appearently killed, Frodo appearently is not killed...walk to the next strange land and repeat.


I couldn't really apprecite the action sequence where:an injuried Frodo was carried slumped over on horseback by the female "Elf"?. I'm pretty sure that was Liv Tyler, but I'm not sure. My problems was during the chase scene, in one shot she is ahead of the "Black Knights" by about 15 yards, then in the next second the Knights are right on her side, well within range to strike her down but they don't. Then in the next shot the knights are again 15 yards behind and then in the next shot once again they were right next to her. Poor editing, if you ask me.


I won't critize the movie for being too long. I realize there's a lot of story to tell. I must admit that 1 hour into the movie I said to myself, "We're still in the Hobbit village? Man, we have a long way to go". I repeated this same thought with some anxiety at the 2 hour mark and again in a panic at the 2:45 mark. I was surprised that the movie didn't wrap up the entire quest. Not necessarily a bad thing, it just caught me off guard, having read nothing about the movie in advance.

I understand why many people love this movie. It's presentation is well done. I can also see why some of the charactors are endearing. To me, it's just not very special. I have given it very little thought since exiting the theater. I await it's sequel with little or no excitement. The first 10-15 minutes was awesome. I would love to see a 3 hour movie on Saurons' rise and fall. The whole concept of the rings still elude me. If Sauron could just make one that controls all the others, why not just make one that controls his? I just missed what the rings do and what power they have other than turning it's wearer invisable. It seemed weird that no one wants to wear the ring, they just want to have it. Why must it be destroyed? It's no good to anyone except Sauron and he's dead, so what's the big deal? I think the movie assumes you already know a lot, which I didn't. Maybe it was in there and I just missed it.

On a scale of 1-10, I give LOTR a 8

 

[Christopher Bosley]

Sorry, that movie could not have blown harder. By the time they got to the second elf city, my head hurt. Was there a single shot that lasted more than five seconds? Could they have tried to introduce MORE characters or gone to MORE different places? Yeah, I get it, the ring is bad, he's gotta throw it in the volcano. You don't have to tell me twenty fricking times.

And though I read the books over twenty years ago, I doubt I would find the line "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" in it. By the time the other two stupid little hobbits got done their Jar Jar Binks impressions, I was hoping the orcs would disobey Sarumon and kill them on the spot.

Like Harry Potter, P. Jackson has remained so faithful to the text that the movie is nothing more than a recreation, and not the interpretation that a film version of a book should aspire to. Where IS David Lynch when you need him?

P.S. How could anyone watch a scene with Elrond and not hear "Mr. Anderson" after each sentence?

"You cannot stay at Rivendell [Mr. Anderson] . . . You will be the fellowship of the ring [Mr. Anderson] . . . I was there 3000 years ago [Mr. Anderson]"

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I've never read the books, but I've seen enough discussion here to at least know the name and race of each character.

The movie was absolutely great. I was immersed in the scenery, hooked by the story, and sympathetic to the characters' plight. The visual effects were great, I'm sure there was a lot of CGI that I didn't even recognize as such because it looked real. True movie-making magic.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The thing I loved about the film was that the cinematography, the special effects, and pretty much everything else, just totally immerse you in this world created from scratch. When a film immerses me like that, then it gives the film a buncha points in my book. I also like the characters a lot and the plot/story were very good and well told, IMHO. I honestly don't see what was so wrong with them to some people (I know what people didn't like about them, but I disagree).

And to those who thought the film was too simple in its story and plot, just keep in mind that this was way more original than most stuff out there, so even if you didn't find as much depth as you wanted, you found something more important.

 

[Ken Wagner]

I saw this movie Friday evening and wanted to wait a day to evaluate what I saw. I have read the books although it has been quite a few years ago. First let me say that the theater I saw this in had a terrible sound system and they left the side lights up too high so some dark scenes were lost. Those were the low points.
I really liked the movie acting, cinematics and all. The length didn't seem like three hours at all. It seemed to follow the book for the most part which should please the purists. I feel the people in the audience that had not read the books would be a little lost because they wouldn't understand the interaction of the characters. There is only so much development you can do in a movie but I thought it was handled well enough for even for a novice.
Now what really made my day was that an hour into the movie my wife leans over and says we have to get the DVD when it comes out. Now this is the ultimate complimant for her to say this since she really takes little interest in my hobby. She also has read the books, several times, and she loved the movie as well. We can't wait until the next movie to come out. Although, she reminded me that the next book deals mainly with Merry and Pippin and their travels. I am going to have to read these again to see what to expect. I hope people won't be disappointed.
:star: :star: :star: :star: :star: of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Is it my turn to praise the film now?
Really what's to say that has'nt been said already about this INCREDIBLY REMARKABLE film!? Like others here, I never read the books, and I had only a working knowledge of the basic elements, Hobbits, Dwarves, Goblins, Wizards, Miiddle Earth etc... But knowing the books back to front is not nesassary to see that this is what we've been starving for from Hollywood, a film that TRULY IS an epic on all fronts!
New Line, listen close, their is no room for error on this dvd when it's released. You packed too much stuff onto the 'Rush Hour 2' dvd, and as a result, the video suffered. Please, DO THIS DVD RIGHT!
BTW, I thought I was up to snuff on effects houses, but who the hell is WETA, and what else have they done? I don't know who they are, or what they've done in the past, but they sure impressed the shit out of me!
The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
You CANNOT miss this film!

 

[James Mitchell]

I just saw this movie last night, and thought it was an okay movie but not nearly as great as I've been hearing. The theater I saw it in was packed, but it seemed like many of the people weren't too happy with it. I think my opinion on the film will be improved after I've seen it as a whole with the other two.
:star: :star: :star: out of:star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[CaptDS9E]

Just got back from seeing it and I must say its a excellent movie. First time in a while ive seen something that Im excited to want to see again . I cant wait till I can watch it on DVD with more comfortable chairs for the long movie. I didnt read the LOTR trilogy before seeing it, but I did read the hobbit this past week. Lots of stuff from the book is mentioned in Fellowship, so for people that are gonna see Fellowship pick up hobbit first as its a jumping off point. Im still gonna read fellowship because i wanna see what was different, and also gotta read Two towers and Return of the King. Im not waiting years to find out what happens

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Wow! What a masterpiece! I had no idea how excellent a story the Tolkien trilogy was.
I finally saw it Last night and was blown away. I believe this is perhaps my favorite movie of the year. I'll tell you why:
1. Storyline - absolutely engrossing story. This folks is a long movie but the storytelling is so good you are sad when it ends and the mind races to imagine what Part 2 will be like.
2. Acting - Frodo is excellent as is Gandalf and is the crew. Further pulls one into the action.
3. Set Design - Suspends all disbelief. You simply feel you are in the middle of an entire new world and there is no other reality.
4. Special effects - loved the part of the horses and the river. Simply amazing. Top production values.
5. Action scenes - some of the best fight scenes I have experienced.
6. Directing and cinematography - Is Peter Jackson the George Lucas (original trilogy, no blasphemy intended!) of today's generation. Great transition shots, beautiful aerials, fast but not too fast pacing, wow...
Very highly recommended - instant classic. I have to go now and see it again!
Lee

 

[Neil Joseph]

I just saw this film 2 hours ago. It is by far the best fantasy movie I have seen. It is very reminiscent of books I have read by Terry Brooks and David Eddings. The movie introduces us to a large array of characters... Hobbits, wizards, elves, dwarves, men, druids, ogres, demons... I love it. Obviously, there has to be a lot of development in the first film of such a series, some may think it too many characters to introduce but that can't really be avoided. The special effects that were used fit nicely into the movie. The sound was right up there too.
:star: :star: :star: :star: 1/2

 

[Michael Dehaven]

I saw P jackson's filming of Tolkein's masterwork last evening. It was a strange film. Visually interesting and banal at the same time. The CGI scenery is almost always softly focused with little or no fine detail. It is so very odd that the film seems to take place over the course of a few days, this is regrettable. I found the monsters, orcs and balrog to be over-emphasized in their ugliness and decibel level, Loud does not increase fear, and the hobbits, elves and wizards bizarrely underplayed. Well, it is an admirable attempt, but the things that make the trilogy so memorable have gone missing here. Tom Bombadil, singing, poetry, and the awesome power of time as the fellowship journeys toward mordor is completely absent here. In the end, this is an overlong B movie, which will fade from popularity quite quickly. I went last night at nine o'clock and there were only 25-30 people in the seats. 6.5/10 Merry Christmas to you and yours.

 

[Artur Meinild]

I've now seen this movie 3 times, so maybe the time is ready for me to share my thoughts on this matter...
First of all, this is simply put one of the best movies I've ever seen! I've read the books some time ago (and I intend to read them again soon!), and many of the scenes in the movie were almost exactly as I envisioned them in the books.
The casting is perfect. All members of all races fit so well into the universe, and McKellen and Lee are just so damn good!
The locations and sets are out of this world. This is the most beautiful imagery I've ever seen, both the radiant and gloomy places.
The effects are awesome! The CGI monsters (especially Gollum, the cave troll and the Balrog) comes to life perfectly, and the MASSIVE battles are brilliant!
However, one thing that caught my eye was the "composition" (if that's the right word?). It's as if the integration between layers could have been better - one example is when Legolas jumps off the cave troll, but there were other instances as well!
Another minor detail was the combat sequences. They were often filmed very "close", but I guess it was done to give it a sense of chaos (and maybe because of the PG-13 rating).
But all in all, I have very few negative comments about the movie. There are so many extremely cool details that they completely overshines the minor annoyances. Examples:
Sauron in the prologue (EVIL in it's purest form).
The PJ cameo (outside the Prancing Pony)!
The 3 petrified trolls in the woods.
Bilbo's "horror" transformation at Rivendel.
The entire Mines of Moria sequence!
I give the theatrical version of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" a rating of 9/10. As mentioned, there are some annoyances that prevent me from giving it the highest rating, but I sincerely hope that the director's cut versions will improve upon some of these details...

 

[Mike Voigt]

Just saw it last night.
Will go see it again.
This is an excellent movie. It is genre-defining, just as the books are in their own realm.
I have some minor quibbles with the film, like the camera sweeps, and just like someone else, I kept waiting for Elrond to say "MR. Baggins," but overall, the film did very well - and in some areas, better than the books: defining Legolas and Gimli, for example.
I rate it a :star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: - and that might go up on a second viewing. I KNOW I missed stuff in that movie!
Mike

 

[Steve Owen]

I thought it would be interesting to tally up the numerical grades presented in this thread... so here it is (though no one asked for it)...
The unofficial Home Theater Forum LOTR:FOTR average grade
Of the 57 or so reviews so far that have given a numerical (or alphabetical) grade, the average is...
8.9/10
I took the numerical grades and turned them all to decimal format. 4/4 was 1.0, 4/5 was 0.8, etc. Alphabetical grades were given something like grade school grades. B+ was 8.5/10 or 0.85 (there weren't too many of those... mostly numerical). After reading this thread again, I think the non-rated reviews are split about the same way. Mostly raves with a few ho-hums.
I can't ever remember seeing any movie that had this many rave reviews from both critics and discussion forum participants.
-Steve

 

[Carlo_M]

Just to put in my grade, count me as a 9/10. I've already posted my feelings in the discussion thread.

 

[JonZ]

I never read the books but I enjoyed the movie.

I cant say how the characters "should be", but I enjoyed all the performances.

The Wraths ruled.

Some of the CGI bothered me,but its a minor complaint.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars.

Also, Im curius if any of the Fellowship characters will be returning in either of the 2 sequels.

 

[Steve Christou]

After just seeing this superb movie once so far, I would rate it 4 out of 4.
I'm planning to see it again before the year is out, so I may be revising my rating to 5 out of 5.
Looking forward to the next one, now retitled, Book II-Attack of the Orcs.

 

[Scott McGillivray]

For my 2 cents, I thought it was a movie that was worth seeing. Not many out lately that I can say that about. It is an odd film in the way it progresses and tries to introduce and develop characters. One can see that there is a lot going unsaid in this film. The effects are great as are most of the action scenes. I loved the effects involving the re-sizing of the actors to different heights. I think that this movie compliments the book as the book compliments the movie. One really helps you appreciate the other.

Overall - 8.5/10