The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Reviews

J.R.R Tolkein's books are wonderful, with memorable characters, an enchanting atmosphere, strong narrative and dialogue and an epic story. Peter Jackson's trilogy mayn't be necessarily true to them, but it does have the memorable characters, the epic story and enchanting atmosphere that the books do. The Fellowship of the Ring is probably the weakest of the three, but it is a very solid start. It is I agree slower in pace to the other two, and there are some talky scenes that drag it down a tad.

However, I cannot deny that this is a great film. One of the many strong assets of this picture are the visuals. The cinematography is marvellous, the costumes are splendid, the effects are great, the makeup is immaculate and the scenery is fantastic especially with Rivendell which was like a Utopia. There is also the score, what an amazing score. As much as I do like Howard Shore, his scoring for the Lord of The Rings trilogy is his most memorable for me and probably his most complex as well. There are so many beautiful and haunting parts here, sometimes even at the same time, as well as the charming Hobbits theme, the ethereal theme played while at Rivendell and the sinister bombastic sounds while at Mordor.

Now I am not going to say that Peter Jackson is a bad director or an outstanding director, but he has directed some wonderful films especially Heavenly Creatures, and this is no exception, where he does a very capable job directing. The story still has its epic scope, with standouts being the confrontation between Gandalf and Sarouman, the scene in the mines with Balrok and Boromir's death scene. I also liked the pursuit of Frodo and Arwyn and Frodo with the Black Riders which was beautifully shot. Then there is the dialogue, which on the whole is excellent, Gandalf in my personal opinion gets the best of it.

And the acting is very good. I do think Frodo is developed more in the sequels than here, but Elijah Wood does do a likable enough job here, while Sean Astin's bumbling yet well meaning persona suits Sam well. Cate Blanchett is a lovely Galadriel, and Liv Tyler is stunning as Arwyn. And then there is Christopher Lee, whose presence always ensures that the performance is going to be good, and indeed it was, and Ian Holm is very good as Bilbo. Sean Bean also does well with Boromir, and John Rhys Davies is a welcome presence. Aragorn like Frodo is developed more in the sequels than here, here he is more brooding and charismatic above all else. Not a bad thing really, as Viggo Mortenssen does do that very well. The standout though is Ian McKellen, who is an absolute revelation as Gandalf, the delivery to the camera, the delivery of the lines, perfectly judged. In fact the only real weak link in the cast is Orlando Bloom, yes he is dashing and handsome, but in the process he does come across as a little uncharismatic and bland.

In conclusion, a great start. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Although it may not be entirely faithful to the book, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy perfectly captures the essence of J.R.R. Tolkein's fantasy classic: it's magical, imaginative and completely unforgettable, but also extremely long and a little hard going at times. Those who stay the distance, however, seem to agree that a bit of perseverance is well worth it in the end.

The Fellowship of the Ring is perhaps the most laborious of the three films, what with the setting up of the plot, the introduction of a multitude of characters, and several talky scenes eating into the 171 minutes running time, but thankfully the film's impressive fantasy fighting action, breath-taking scenery, and amazing performances more than make up for the duller moments.

All in all, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to be an admirable start for this ambitious attempt at bringing Tolkein's complex fantasy epic to the screen.

I did not have much to talk about a lot about this


First I have not read the original book
still I think he could adapt the story well
even so regardless of not having read the book is good

the characters are nice and have a well-made personality
the performance was good

the music has a special touch that for some reason kept the viewer entertained

In total it is a great adaptation of a book and it is Recommended

9/10


No Tengo Mucho que hablar de esto


Primero no he leído el libro original
Todavía creo que consiguio adaptar bien la historia
aun así, independientemente de no haber leído, el libro la historia es buena

los personajes son agradables y tienen una personalidad bien hecha
el rendimiento fue bueno

la música tiene un toque especial que por alguna razón puede mantener al espectador entretenido

En total es una gran adaptación de un libro y es Recomendada


9/10

I was looking forward to 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring', the first hour is great, the second hour is good - but after that, it gets really boring

'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' goes on forever and gets boring, it looked good, the story was good and there was a pretty good cast (Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Boom, Christopher Lee, Sean Bean, Ian Holm, Andy Serkis) but the huge let down of the movie is that it just never stops and eventually you get really bored

I liked the effects but I really don't remember seeing Gollum in it a lot and I like 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' a lot more

I'm hoping for 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' and the 'Lord of the Rings' sequels to improve over this as well, it's far from being a bad movie but it's also far from being a masterpiece and is way overrated in my opinion, can't really see why everyone loves it

I don't agree with Richard Roeper's review but I can see why he didn't like it - it goes on forever and ever

I already saw this movie, I even saw it in the movie theater when it was released, but since I have it on DVD and since I just bought an awesome brand new TV, I thought I might as well check it out again. I remember perfectly when I saw this flick the first time though. Indeed, beforehand, I spent a year reading the whole trilogy so I was definitely going to watch it at some point but I wasn't sure when. Anyway, the week-end of its release, Saturday evening, I was chilling out with my buddies, rather bored and nobody knew what we should do. So, I proposed to see this new flick. And off we went to the multiplex. However, the whole thing was packed and we realized that our movie was sold out. Bummer... Suddenly, just when we thought to get the hell out of there, some guy showed up with precisely the right number of tickets! So, we managed to watch it and it was f*cking priceless, at the end, my best buddy who knew nothing about this trilogy looked at me, kind of desperate, 'is it the end? Come on! I want to see what will happen after this!!!'. Eventually, he had to wait another year... Anyway, I must admit it, the first time I watched it, I wasn't exactly blown away. I mean, it looked awesome and I was entertained during the whole thing, that's for sure, but, basically, I thought it was a very long introduction before the real thing started. However, even though I have seen it so many times by now, it seems that I enjoy it more each time I rewatch the damned thing and, now, I'm convinced it is major classic. Indeed, Peter Jackson did deliver here the ultimate epic fantasy with some complex and fascinating mythology and a mesmerizing world filled up with so many charismatic characters. Anyway, as a stand alone movie, it is really amazing but, as one third of a great epic tale, it is even more awesome and the damned thing is pretty much a must-see for any decent movie buff.

It is unsurprising that critics have taken The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring to liking. It's rich story, fantastic set pieces and marvelous special effects make all this clear. And fans of the books are certainly pleased, I would imagine. But frankly, I'm still not quite sure how anyone else managed to enjoy this film. It's excessive length and constant chatter can make The Fellowship a somewhat tedious affair at times.

As complicated as the film may be, The Fellowship is really about a hobbit (think a small person with very large feet) named Frodo Baggins, who receives a ring from one his relatives, that must be destroyed. Easier said than done, though. Many dark powers have sought to take the ring for their own, and will go to great lengths to secure the ring.

Of course, the film is much more complex than that. With many unique (if a wee bit bland) characters, as well as other things that truly enrich the story. Still, what I have explained above is the basic plot.

The run time is monstrous at nearly 3 hours in length. And because much of the film involves a lot of talking, this feels even longer. Yes, there are some action scenes that, while not being truly innovative or unique, at least bring some true excitement, which The Fellowship desperately needed more of.

Outside of action scenes, the slow, laboring pace is only assisted otherwise by two hobbits that join the journey, named Pippin and Merry, who provide comic relief.

Special effects are gorgeous, as are the costumes and set pieces. You really do feel transported to another world. With imagery both beautiful, and sometimes disturbing, The Fellowship brings some fantastic visuals to the screen.

The score, by Howard Shore, is appropriately mysterious, and lighthearted when it needs to be. The main theme may not be initially memorable, but it is quite beautiful, and those who really pay attention to the score will be rewarded.

The acting was extremely strong. Truly some of the best I've seen. Elijah Wood plays the confused and determined Frodo, while Sean Astin plays Frodo's faithful companion, Sam. Ian McKellen plays a majestic and somewhat mysterious role as Gandalf, a wizard and friend of Frodo. And Christopher Lee lends a wonderfully sinister Saruman.

The Fellowship Of The Ring can be tedious at times, and the bloated run time can really take it's toll, but this first chapter in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy manages to have enough high points to make for a (perhaps, slightly hesitant) recommendation.

At the time of 'Fellowship of the Rings' release, the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy was the highest selling book worldwide besides the Bible. It was one of the most influential and loved works of the 20th Century. The big question was, is it possible for a film to be made, matching the high standard of the novel? Reading a book and watching a movie are two completely different things. One is left for your own interpretation and visualisation, the other is given to you. In my opinion, 'Fellowship of the Ring' succeeded in almost every way in bringing the book to life. Of course not everything can be included. Many things, but only the most irrelevant things, were cut out from the book, including the character Tom Bombadil.

Peter Jackson masterfully exceeded all expectations in making the first book of the trilogy. The time and work obviously put into the film is astounding, the production being so detailed that it seems to mimic Tolkien's perfectionism and, like Tolkien's work, the time spent on the production of the film has guaranteed an exceptionally high standard adaptation.

Firstly, there are the special effects. This film was such a benchmark because everything looked so real. The creatures, landscapes, and even the almost unnoticed genius in making the Hobbits to scale is so realistic that you begin to believe that it could all be real. Watching the film is such an incredible experience, and you know that you're watching something special when the film has the ability to completely draw you into a fictitious world.

The settings and Art Direction are also a major factor in bringing Middle-Earth to life. New Zealand was the perfect location for filming, as it is so natural and untouched. The landscape is a major part in the film because Tolkien was so incredibly descriptive and the designers, and the locations in New Zealand have definitely given the book justice by making Middle-Earth a beautiful, inviting and magical place.

But did Peter Jackson capture the magic of the book in his film? I believe he did. There are plenty of things to like about the film. The thrilling battle sequences, the engaging plot, the state of the art special effects, and of course the characters. The cast includes such accomplished actors as Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Liv Tyler and John Rhys-Davies. Despite Elijah Wood (Frodo) only really using one facial expression for almost the entire film, he was nevertheless innocent and very well cast, as were the rest of the ensemble cast who gave fantastic performances. The musical score is memorable and symbolic and now the tunes are attached with 'The Lord of the Rings', so much so that it would seem as though they were written as Tolkien was writing the book.

So Peter Jackson, a relatively unknown director at the time of the film's release, created what may be one of the greatest Fantasy film adventures of all time from a classic novel. He took filmmaking to a new level and set a benchmark for films in the future.

J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, the three books that make up "The Lord of the Rings," is about two profound things -- the horror of power without spiritual understanding, and the nature of courage. In the figure of Frodo, the humble, small-town hobbit who never expected to be called upon for acts of bravery or sacrifice, several generations of readers have found their everyman, their hairy-footed inspiration, their call to day-by-day fortitude.
The books are marvelous, and they have, like all great epics, the power to awaken powerful responses in their readers. To even begin to conceive of a cinematic version of the series is daunting -- not only because the books' power lies in the intimacy of their imagination but also because they are so specific in Tolkien's construction, created with such loving specificity. Get one thing wrong, and the whole thing is wrong . . . or at least not quite right.

Well, "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" gets it right. It's a wonderful movie. Watching it, one can't help but get the impression that everyone involved was steeped in Tolkien's work, loved the book, treasured it and took care not to break a cherished thing in it. Director Peter Jackson has created a film refreshingly free of ego, giving this technically advanced picture an old-fashioned rhythm and gravity. Scenes play out without constant jump-cutting or obtrusive editing. The movie as a movie becomes, in a strange way, unnoticeable, because it's so correct.

The trilogy was about character, and so is the movie. In spite of its stunning special effects and beautiful art direction, the film

draws its power mainly from the essence, humanity and skill of its lead actors. Ian McKellen as Gandalf the wizard, Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins, Elijah Wood as Frodo -- and the rest of the actors who make up the fellowship -- hit their roles head on, with conviction and purity of heart. This is no place for post-modern detachment. The result is an acting company that interacts like the best of ensembles. The audience gets to be swept away because the actors are going there, too. .

A WIZARD'S AURA

McKellen is particularly splendid. In him, the aura of a great wizard and a great stage actor combine effortlessly. He inhabits Gandalf without camp or bravado, but with a sly sense of enjoyment that makes it a characterization for adults as well as children. One gets the sense that McKellen understands the profundity of the role, and yet some part of him is also thinking, "Can you believe I get to wear this hat?" It's thoroughly winning.


Hobbits are small, good-natured folk who love to have fun and who eat constantly. Dwarfs are somewhat broader and have rougher dispositions. Humans are humans, and elves are tall, beautiful, immortal beings, who, at least in this movie, are slightly prickly and aloof, like Swedish hairstylists. Cate Blanchett is Queen Elizabeth-like as Galadriel, the elf queen, and Liv Tyler is lovely and earnest as Arwen, an elf princess.

The movie gets off to an assured start with a visit by Gandalf to Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit friend. Through camera magic, Gandalf appears to be twice the size of Bilbo (even without the pointy hat), and the sight of the tall wizard trying to navigate the rooms in Bilbo's tiny house takes us immediately into this charming other world.
The film's story centers on a gold ring that gives invincible power to anyone who wears it. Bilbo has been in possession of it for years, and when he leaves town, he passes it on to Frodo. The ring is a force of evil, and the creator of that force, Sauron, is hot in pursuit of it. It becomes Frodo's mission -- dreaded, unasked for -- to save civilization by destroying the ring in the only place it can be destroyed, the hellish furnace where Sauron forged it.
"Fellowship of the Ring" gets its title from the team of warriors who go off with Frodo and several hobbit companions on what seems like an impossible mission. The fellowship is the Middle-earth equivalent of a U.N. contingent -- hobbits, a dwarf, a wizard, an elf and two men, who must overcome their antagonisms and weaknesses in order to fight an evil that threatens to engulf the world. .

A HUMBLE HOBBIT

Wood is perfect as Frodo, the one being with enough humility not to be seduced by the ring's glamour. The role requires a quality of being as much as acting, and Wood's performance will come as a relief after many nauseating seasons of vile young screen actors embodying vile and narcissistic characters.

It's a beautiful thing -- an unsnotty, available, affectionate and utterly open performance.

Ian Holm is memorable in his handful of scenes as the hobbit who, having kept the ring of power for so many years, finds himself eroding in spirit, even as he is preserved in body. Viggo Mortensen brings the magnetism of an anti-hero to Aragorn, the wandering outcast king. Like Sean Bean, who is equally impressive as Boromir, Mortensen gives the sense of a great man in reduced times. .

SPLENDID SETTINGS

The interior of the mines of Moria is dreamlike, and the goblins running up and down its columns are as eerie -- and may someday be considered as unforgettable -- as the winged monkeys in "The Wizard of Oz." The splendor of the various settings are too many to detail, but the harrowing escape from the mines is especially magnificent. In every way, this is moviemaking on a grand scale.

"Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring" would be an exceptional film in any year or season. Yet there's no escaping that part of what makes this film especially powerful is what happened to us as a nation Sept. 11.

The themes feel sad and close. We see visions of a fallen planet, of men unable to control their lust for power, of wizards of unimaginable knowledge who have sold their souls for profit. Most of all, we see a world in fear, and a shadow from another land that threatens the end of everything.

I think it is important to remember that Peter Jackson took up this film not in order just to make a film of `The Lord of the Rings' but because he wanted to make a 'fantasy just like the `The Lord of the Rings'" as he himself put it. After repeating that phrase on a number of occasions the question popped into his mind: "Well, why not the `The Lord of the Rings' itself?". In doing this he, of course, set himself an enormous challenge: he had to make a really good `fantasy' film, one which would stand on its own and be true to what he had originally wanted to do but he would also, and here the task he had set himself was enormous, be true to the original book and to make a film which the legions of people who have loved this book would feel happy with. In the latter task he was certainly not helped by the author or the book: Tolkein, it would seem, hated cinema. The book itself is `HUGE': this was not going to be the kind of task that the James Ivory team set themselves, or Scorsese nor the kind of task facing Branagh with Hamlet; nor was it going to be like the puny task that faced Columbus with `Harry Potter' who had the bigger budget ($130 million for one film as compared with Peter Jackson with $300m for three).

I have just seen the first `volume' and can say without hesitation that he has succeeded in both his goals. It is not the book but a reading of the book which is inventive and fascinating. It is the kind of experience that makes you want to go back and reread the whole thing in the light of the emphases that Jackson has brought to the story. He focuses on the corrupting influence of the ring and, through this focus, the character of the chief protagonists of the story are revealed. Clearly those most tempted by it are mortal men (Boromir and even, in one moment, Aragorn), those who already have power (Elrond - `The ring cannot stay here'; Galadriel; Gandalf and Saruman), and, of course, those who would not normally desire it but who by accident become ring bearers - Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo. I can see why, in this reading, Jackson decided to leave out the Bombadil episode. Bombadil, like the Balrog, is beyond the ring but the latter is important to the unfolding of the story of the fates of all the characters, Bombadil isn't.

It is a miracle of this reading of the first volume of the book that one can see where Jackson is going and one can get a feel of how the reading is going to unfold. In a sense, Jackson's real trial - as far as those who know the books are concerned - will come with the second film in the series. He has lived up to our expectation by creating even bigger ones: how can he handle the story of the chase andrescue of Merry and Pippin, the storming of Isengard etc - stories which don't really add much to the core theme that is emerging. Or is he now going to add the theme of the great contest of good versus evil to the unfolding reading?

All of this points to the fact that the film, even though it is a feast of special effects, focuses on character. And this also explains why Jackson chose the actors he did for their roles: they are not `big' names - no `Sean Connery', no `Alan Rickman', no `Brad Pitt', no `Sam Neill'etc. He didn't want them getting in the way of the story of character. Ian McKellan's talents, in particular, are used to tell a large proportion of the story: an enormous amount is conveyed simply through his facial expressions and even by the language of his body. The other miracle in all of this is Elijah Wood. Like many others, when I first heard of Jackson's choice, I groaned: but Wood has been extraordinary. He brings, as one friend said, a strange kind of androgyny to the role and this is just perfect. McKellan has already been knighted: give Wood the Oscar.

And then there is Middle Earth: this is, as someone put it, another character in the story and the New Zealand landscape, digitally enhanced on occasion, lives up to its role too.

Enough. See this film! Greatest film ever made? How can one make a claim like that! Silly really; as silly as claiming that `The Lord of the Rings' is the greatest book ever written. Can't one simply love a story, enjoy reading it a number of times amd lose oneself in it. One CAN claim that it is the greatest work in its genre as is the film.