The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

9

TheApplegnomeDec 9, 2014

A wonderful and touching movie that truly is entertaining to watch.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a highly unique movie, and it keeps me entertained every time I watch it, because it’s so damn good and the music is spectacular! Yes, someA wonderful and touching movie that truly is entertaining to watch.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a highly unique movie, and it keeps me entertained every time I watch it, because it’s so damn good and the music is spectacular! Yes, some people might experience some slow and boring scenes, but I didn’t find anything boring at all, because the story and the characters totally keeps me entertained every time I watch it. I’m also thrilled by how great Peter Jackson did the movie, because there’s almost nothing negative about The Fellowship of the Ring. One thing though, is the CGI. There are a lot of practical effects that totally is superior of todays CGI, and the CGI in The Fellowship of the Ring is amazing if you look at it from a 2000s perspective. I’m stunned how incredible they made this film, but if you look closely there are some vague CGI, but I don’t really care. Because the plot of The Fellowship of the Ring is stunning.

This is one of the best movies of the 2000s.

The Fellowship of the Ring gets a 9/10.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

bfoore90Apr 16, 2019

A truly ambitious and wonderful start to the Lord of the Rings franchise and still holds up well today

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

AaronWasserman2May 5, 2014

A fun engaging movie that captures the spirit of its books. The Lord of the Rings 1 has a great cast, score, effects, action, you name it. Even though this film is nearly 3 hours, and feels like it, but you dont get bored of it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

SkyrimGuy935Jan 26, 2015

Half of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is lighthearted, and the other half is a dark, mature, fantasy tale. Either way though, Fellowship is a thoroughly enjoyable fantasy romp filled with fun, lovable characters, fantasticHalf of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is lighthearted, and the other half is a dark, mature, fantasy tale. Either way though, Fellowship is a thoroughly enjoyable fantasy romp filled with fun, lovable characters, fantastic acting, a captivating story, truly pulse-pounding action sequences, and a surprising emotional impact. This film set the stage perfectly for its two sequels.

I give it a rating of 9.7/10, and it is one of my ten favorite films of all time.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

thomasljoguesNov 13, 2014

Fantastic in both presentation and immersion, this iteration of Tolkien's masterpiece is well done. Having both the greatest mentor of cinema and the greatest adventure in literature, this rendition will never be forgotten.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

EddyGregsApr 19, 2015

Passed to him by his uncle Bilbo, young Hobbit Frodo Baggins becomes the unlikely and unwilling bearer of The One Ring of power, an instrument of unparalleled evil. And so Frodo, along with his three Hobbit chums, the wizard Gandalf and aPassed to him by his uncle Bilbo, young Hobbit Frodo Baggins becomes the unlikely and unwilling bearer of The One Ring of power, an instrument of unparalleled evil. And so Frodo, along with his three Hobbit chums, the wizard Gandalf and a swordsman named Strider, set out on an epic quest.

Fellowship is indeed merely an opening salvo, and even after three hours in the dark you will likely exit the cinema ravenous with anticipation for the further two parts of the trilogy. Fellowship is also unabashedly rooted in the fantasy genre. Not to be confused with the techno-cool of good science fiction, nor even the cutesy charm of family fare like Harry Potter, the territory of Tolkien is clearly marked by goo and goblins and **** Persons with an aversion to lines such as, “To the bridge of Khazad-dûm!” are as well to stay within the Shire-like comforts of home (their loss).

utting formula blockbusters to shame, Fellowship is impeccably cast and constructed with both care and passion: this is a labour of love that never feels laboured. Emotional range and character depth ultimately take us beyond genre limitations, and it deserves to play as wide as a certain Mr. Potter.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015

In the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expandedIn the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expanded from a minor subsection of science fiction to a major category in its own right. A couple dozen titles have been replaced by hundreds. Fantasy has gone from being a cult genre to entering the mainstream. This would not have happened without the popularity and influence of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Nearly every published fantasy author acknowledges having read and been inspired by Tolkien's canon, and, while The Lord of the Rings may not be the longest or most complex fantasy series to date, it remains the standard against which all similar works are measured. It is the epic fantasy series.

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The Lord of the Rings is not an actors' movie, but each member of the cast acquits himself or herself well. Of special note are Ian McKellan, who presents Gandalf as a vulnerable and sympathetic figure; Ian Holm, whose Bilbo Baggins is a weary and tortured individual; and Elijah Wood, who shows the gradual changes in Frodo as he is transformed from a carefree hobbit to the person upon whom the fate of the world rests. Some recognizable names fill small roles - Liv Tyler is surprisingly good as Arwen; Cate Blanchett is cool and regal as Galadriel; and Christopher Lee brings his chilling presence to the part of the treacherous, traitorous Sauruman.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

CinemaBlendMay 6, 2015

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons andTo say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is an adventure, and, in that, it is relentlessly successful. One does not need to have read the books to appreciate the movie. The background is explained concisely in a voiceover prologue, and the action proceeds in a straightforward manner. As long as one enjoys a well-crafted adventure yarn set against the backdrop of a mythical clash between good and evil, The Lord of the Rings will satisfy. Like all great movies of this sort, this one is characterized by tremendous action scenes punctuated by moments of rest and reflection. So, we have the flight from the Shire, followed by the council at Rivendell, followed by the hazardous trek through Moria (the movie's high point), followed by the encounter with Galadriel, followed by the sundering of the fellowship. Along the way, there is triumph, sorrow, and a little philosophical depth. The Lord of the Rings emphasizes two themes: the importance of brotherhood and the need for true strength to come from within.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The Lord of the Rings is not an actors' movie, but each member of the cast acquits himself or herself well. Of special note are Ian McKellan, who presents Gandalf as a vulnerable and sympathetic figure; Ian Holm, whose Bilbo Baggins is a weary and tortured individual; and Elijah Wood, who shows the gradual changes in Frodo as he is transformed from a carefree hobbit to the person upon whom the fate of the world rests. Some recognizable names fill small roles - Liv Tyler is surprisingly good as Arwen; Cate Blanchett is cool and regal as Galadriel; and Christopher Lee brings his chilling presence to the part of the treacherous, traitorous Sauruman.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

CinemaSinsMay 9, 2015

In the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expandedIn the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expanded from a minor subsection of science fiction to a major category in its own right. A couple dozen titles have been replaced by hundreds. Fantasy has gone from being a cult genre to entering the mainstream. This would not have happened without the popularity and influence of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Nearly every published fantasy author acknowledges having read and been inspired by Tolkien's canon, and, while The Lord of the Rings may not be the longest or most complex fantasy series to date, it remains the standard against which all similar works are measured. It is the epic fantasy series.

When Tolkien began writing The Hobbit in the 1930s, he was unaware that he was essentially defining a genre. Tolkien was not the first author to write what would eventually be labeled as "fantasy", but his synthesis of elements - mythology, stories of larger-than-life heroism, the supernatural, and fairy tales - was unique. Nothing on the scale or scope of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings had previously been seen - not even the legends of King Arthur, Merlin, and Camelot were as well developed or executed.

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

Lord of the Rings devotees will be delighted to learn that the motion picture adaptation is as faithful as one could imagine possible (and, consequently, is nearly three hours in length). Jackson and his co-screenwriters (Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens) do an excellent job condensing more than five hundred pages of text into a script that never feels choppy, uneven, or rushed. The Fellowship of the Ring moves fluidly and, in the process, exhilarates. Certain scenes have been cut or condensed in the name of pacing, and the role of one character (Arwen) has been expanded to enhance a romantic angle, something that was largely absent from Tolkien's work.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

9

Li0NoX_MCJul 22, 2015

An epic start to an awesome franchise. A little boring at first but then as the plot goes on it really proves that its an awesome introduction to a place filled lore and awesomeness!

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

kyle20ellisSep 12, 2020

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,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… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

EpicLadySpongeJan 5, 2016

If you want to start a fun adventure about the Lord of the Rings, start off here. It'll be a waste of your time, but who cares? Have fun watching this movie.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

TheMovieDoctorJan 7, 2016

In the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expandedIn the pantheon of fantasy writers, no diety is treated with greater reverence than J.R.R. Tolkien, who is regarded by most readers as the Father of Modern Fantasy. During the past three decades, the fantasy area in bookstores has expanded from a minor subsection of science fiction to a major category in its own right. A couple dozen titles have been replaced by hundreds. Fantasy has gone from being a cult genre to entering the mainstream. This would not have happened without the popularity and influence of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Nearly every published fantasy author acknowledges having read and been inspired by Tolkien's canon, and, while The Lord of the Rings may not be the longest or most complex fantasy series to date, it remains the standard against which all similar works are measured. It is the epic fantasy series.

In the late 1990s, New Zealand-based director Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures) had two projects on the drawing board - a remake of King Kong and an ambitious, three-film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. For a while, it looked like King Kong would get the go-ahead, but the project was squashed in the wake of the failure of Sony's Godzilla and Disney's Mighty Joe Young. So, Jackson turned his attention to The Lord of the Rings. After briefly being courted and jilted by Miramax Films, Jackson found a backer in New Line Cinema. The Time-Warner company invested nearly $300 million for the package deal of all three movies, which were filmed back-to-back-to-back. (Including publicity and marketing, the overall price tag will approach $500 million.)

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

Lord of the Rings devotees will be delighted to learn that the motion picture adaptation is as faithful as one could imagine possible (and, consequently, is nearly three hours in length). Jackson and his co-screenwriters (Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens) do an excellent job condensing more than five hundred pages of text into a script that never feels choppy, uneven, or rushed. The Fellowship of the Ring moves fluidly and, in the process, exhilarates. Certain scenes have been cut or condensed in the name of pacing, and the role of one character (Arwen) has been expanded to enhance a romantic angle, something that was largely absent from Tolkien's work.

First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is an adventure, and, in that, it is relentlessly successful. One does not need to have read the books to appreciate the movie. The background is explained concisely in a voiceover prologue, and the action proceeds in a straightforward manner. As long as one enjoys a well-crafted adventure yarn set against the backdrop of a mythical clash between good and evil, The Lord of the Rings will satisfy. Like all great movies of this sort, this one is characterized by tremendous action scenes punctuated by moments of rest and reflection. So, we have the flight from the Shire, followed by the council at Rivendell, followed by the hazardous trek through Moria (the movie's high point), followed by the encounter with Galadriel, followed by the sundering of the fellowship. Along the way, there is triumph, sorrow, and a little philosophical depth. The Lord of the Rings emphasizes two themes: the importance of brotherhood and the need for true strength to come from within.

The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

CinemassacreMar 13, 2016

In the late 1990s, New Zealand-based director Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures) had two projects on the drawing board - a remake of King Kong and an ambitious, three-film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. For a while, it looked like KingIn the late 1990s, New Zealand-based director Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures) had two projects on the drawing board - a remake of King Kong and an ambitious, three-film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. For a while, it looked like King Kong would get the go-ahead, but the project was squashed in the wake of the failure of Sony's Godzilla and Disney's Mighty Joe Young. So, Jackson turned his attention to The Lord of the Rings. After briefly being courted and jilted by Miramax Films, Jackson found a backer in New Line Cinema. The Time-Warner company invested nearly $300 million for the package deal of all three movies, which were filmed back-to-back-to-back. (Including publicity and marketing, the overall price tag will approach $500 million.)

To say that fantasy movies have not been a big draw at the box office is to understate the matter. A lot of this has had to do with the poor quality of the product. Consider the evidence: titles like Willow, Dragonheart, and Dungeons and Dragons. Finally, 2001 has seen the belated emergence of fantasy as a legitimate cinematic genre. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of the year's most anticipated releases and, by the end of December, it will be one of the top money-makers of the past 12 months. Now, along comes The Lord of the Rings, as anticipated for 30-50 year olds and Harry Potter was for their children.

As entertaining as Harry Potter may be, it cannot hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. With this production, Jackson has used The Lord of the Rings to re-invent fantasy for the cinema in the same way that the novel provided the blueprint for the written word. This astounding movie accomplishes what no other fantasy film has been able to do: transport viewers to an entirely different reality, immerse them in it, and maroon them there for nearly three hours. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings Middle Earth to glorious life. From the first moment of the first reel, I was there.

First and foremost, The Lord of the Rings is an adventure, and, in that, it is relentlessly successful. One does not need to have read the books to appreciate the movie. The background is explained concisely in a voiceover prologue, and the action proceeds in a straightforward manner. As long as one enjoys a well-crafted adventure yarn set against the backdrop of a mythical clash between good and evil, The Lord of the Rings will satisfy. Like all great movies of this sort, this one is characterized by tremendous action scenes punctuated by moments of rest and reflection. So, we have the flight from the Shire, followed by the council at Rivendell, followed by the hazardous trek through Moria (the movie's high point), followed by the encounter with Galadriel, followed by the sundering of the fellowship. Along the way, there is triumph, sorrow, and a little philosophical depth. The Lord of the Rings emphasizes two themes: the importance of brotherhood and the need for true strength to come from within.

In crafting his vision of Middle Earth, Jackson has employed all of the tricks available to him: miniatures, deceptive camera angles, location shooting, impressive set design, and matte paintings. He has also made use of computer graphics, but not to the extent that another director might have. Thus, The Lord of the Rings has a less artificial appearance than might have been the case if Jackson had relied too heavily on CGI technology. Andrew Lesnie's camerawork has the grand scope expected in an epic motion picture, and Howard Shore's score, which is at times heroic and at times thoughtful, compliments the visuals without ever calling attention to itself.

The Lord of the Rings is not an actors' movie, but each member of the cast acquits himself or herself well. Of special note are Ian McKellan, who presents Gandalf as a vulnerable and sympathetic figure; Ian Holm, whose Bilbo Baggins is a weary and tortured individual; and Elijah Wood, who shows the gradual changes in Frodo as he is transformed from a carefree hobbit to the person upon whom the fate of the world rests. Some recognizable names fill small roles - Liv Tyler is surprisingly good as Arwen; Cate Blanchett is cool and regal as Galadriel; and Christopher Lee brings his chilling presence to the part of the treacherous, traitorous Sauruman.

The strength of Jackson's vision as depicted in The Fellowship of the Ring gives movie-goers cause to hope that we may be in the midst of a cinematic achievement. If The Two Towers and The Return of the King live up to the standard set by this film, The Lord of the Rings will become a milestone not only for its genre, but for motion pictures in general. But, regardless of what the future brings, the single movie we now have before us stands out as one of the most rousing examples of entertainment to reach multiplexes in a long time. At last, someone has figured out how to do an epic fantasy justice on the big screen.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

MovieMasterEdMar 22, 2016

Partially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final billPartially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final bill likely to come in somewhere near $400 million when production and marketing costs are all tallied, one has to credit New Line Cinema with a tremendous amount of guts for shooting the moon for all three pictures with a young New Zealand director with only one genuinely notable, and small-scaled, film (“Heavenly Creatures”) to his credit.

But Jackson must have convinced someone that he would do it right, a view thoroughly borne out by what’s up on the screen. Evocatively delineating the many aspects of Middle-Earth on tremendously diverse locations in New Zealand in resourceful collaboration with a massive crew, Jackson keeps a firm hand on the work’s central themes of good versus evil, rising to the occasion and group loyalty in the face of adversity, and always keeps things moving without getting bogged down in frills or effects for effects’ sake.

Pic’s main problem, however, is inherent in the odyssey-like structure of the tale; the “and then, and then, and then” nature of the narrative becomes necessarily repetitive and even a bit wearisome at times, and ultimately arbitrary in the sense that one battle more or less with the Orcs, Ringwraiths or Uruk-Hai wouldn’t have made much difference. Lack of dramatic arcs involving rising action, relaxation and interconnecting story strands unfortunately makes the film’s running time feel pretty much like the three hours it is.

The film also very well handles the matter of perspective and height differentiation between the Hobbits and Dwarfs, for example, who are meant to be less than four feet tall, and the human-scaled characters, something that must have been as difficult as many other more obvious effects. Andrew Lesnie’s lensing has its slightly murky moments but is predominantly muscular in putting forceful images on a large canvas.

While he has perhaps not written a classic epic adventure score in the manner of Korngold, Rozsa or Steiner, Howard Shore has composed two hours of music that is constantly supportive, creative and complementary to the action. As such, it represents an object lesson that handily points up how unnecessarily intrusive and insufferably distracting John Williams’ work is in “Harry Potter.”

One place where “Harry” outflanks “Rings” is the in the starriness of its cast, but the film is nonetheless capably served. One hallmark of the players is their startlingly blue eyes, especially those of Wood, McKellen and Blanchett. Wood’s Frodo spends most of “Fellowship” coming to terms with his unwanted responsibility as Ringbearer, and is generally uncertain and frightened as a result, something that will no doubt change over the course of the two remaining installments. McKellen delivers Gandalf with great relish and gusto, giving the picture a shot in the arm whenever he’s around, which is often. Mortensen and Bean cut dynamic figures as Frodo’s expert swordsmen, Rhys-Davies is a barrel of fierce defiance, while horror vet Lee is silkilysuperb as the chief nemesis in a black tower. Blanchett and Tyler have relatively little to do, at least in this first episode, and the small attempts at humor, particularly with the tag-alongs Merry and Pippin, seem half-hearted and rote.

Still, New Line and company should be able to breathe a sigh of relief after the picture comes out, and there is little doubt that those who grab the “Rings” at the start will anxiously await Frodo’s trip into ever more perilous territory a year hence.… Expand

7 of 7 users found this helpful70

All this user's reviews

9

MovieMasterEddyApr 17, 2016

“The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first installment in Peter Jackson’s vigorous and faithful adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy, looks to please the book’s legions of fans with its imaginatively scrupulous rendering of the tome’s“The Fellowship of the Ring,” the first installment in Peter Jackson’s vigorous and faithful adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy, looks to please the book’s legions of fans with its imaginatively scrupulous rendering of the tome’s characters and worlds on the screen, as well as the uninitiated with its uninterrupted flow of incident and spectacle.

Partially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final bill likely to come in somewhere near $400 million when production and marketing costs are all tallied, one has to credit New Line Cinema with a tremendous amount of guts for shooting the moon for all three pictures with a young New Zealand director with only one genuinely notable, and small-scaled, film (“Heavenly Creatures”) to his credit.

But Jackson must have convinced someone that he would do it right, a view thoroughly borne out by what’s up on the screen. Evocatively delineating the many aspects of Middle-Earth on tremendously diverse locations in New Zealand in resourceful collaboration with a massive crew, Jackson keeps a firm hand on the work’s central themes of good versus evil, rising to the occasion and group loyalty in the face of adversity, and always keeps things moving without getting bogged down in frills or effects for effects’ sake.

Pic’s main problem, however, is inherent in the odyssey-like structure of the tale; the “and then, and then, and then” nature of the narrative becomes necessarily repetitive and even a bit wearisome at times, and ultimately arbitrary in the sense that one battle more or less with the Orcs, Ringwraiths or Uruk-Hai wouldn’t have made much difference. Lack of dramatic arcs involving rising action, relaxation and interconnecting story strands unfortunately makes the film’s running time feel pretty much like the three hours it is.

It’s all about the ring, of course, the One Ring which, in a potent prologue that out-mummies “The Mummy” in terms of sweeping combat, is shown being forged by the malevolent Sauron as a source of dark power, being lost in battle and finally disappearing for 3,000 years until it’s retrieved by an unlikely Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm). Perfectly mirroring the opening chapters of the book as if to reassure the faithful millions that its intentions are honorable, film depicts old Bilbo being urged by his old friend, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), to leave the ring behind for his adopted nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood), who has now come of age but knows nothing of the ring, its legacy or power.

Early stretches are obliged to pack in a great deal of exposition, but screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Jackson make it go down easily by mixing in agreeable doses of action and character work. Bilbo takes off but Gandalf keeps turning up whenever he’s needed to mentor the reluctant Ringbearer, who, with his best friend Sam (Sean Astin) and mirthsome buddies Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), set out from the Shire with one purpose: to return the ring to Mount Doom in dreaded Mordor, where it was created and the only place it can be destroyed, so as to save civilization from the full force of evil that would be unleashed should it fall back into the wrong hands.

Much, of course, stands in their way. For starters, the ring itself “wants” to be returned to evildoers who can fulfill its potential, forces now represented by turncoat wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee), who gathers an army of fearsome fighting monsters in order to capture the gold. There are also relentless Dark Riders, marauding swordsmen, natural catastrophes and airborne spies, which give Saruman a clear picture of where they are.

After innumerable confrontations, fights and close shaves — most cinematically notable an exciting chase in which Arwen, with an injured Frodo onboard, outflanks a posse of Dark Riders — “Fellowship” has its first climax in the Mines of Moria, a corpse-strewn complex of caves and vaulting chambers where the valiant band is attacked by ghastly Orcs, including one giant ogre who looks like the illegitimate brother of a supporting player in “Harry Potter.” Once the group has made its daring escape, it is attacked again in a forest, from which Frodo must flee before setting out for Mordor and the sequel, “The Two Towers.”

The film also very well handles the matter of perspective and height differentiation between the Hobbits and Dwarfs.

While he has perhaps not written a classic epic adventure score in the manner of Korngold, Rozsa or Steiner, Howard Shore has composed two hours of music that is constantly supportive, creative and complementary to the action. As such, it represents an object lesson that handily points up how unnecessarily intrusive and insufferably distracting John Williams’ work is in “Harry Potter.”… Expand

7 of 7 users found this helpful70

All this user's reviews

9

Muskrat147Oct 23, 2016

An incredible adaptation of the first chapter of J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring captivates with its dazzling visuals and fascinating story.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

TheSpideyReviewFeb 5, 2018

A movie that somehow makes exposotion fun. It shows well-thought out characters while showing how dangerous "the one ring to rule them all" can be.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

Thatonenerd2187Jan 20, 2017

This film is one of Peter Jackson's best directed films, as he directs such an amazing film. The story itself has a great start to it, as it takes it's time to develop the world and characters around them, especially since this film is wellThis film is one of Peter Jackson's best directed films, as he directs such an amazing film. The story itself has a great start to it, as it takes it's time to develop the world and characters around them, especially since this film is well paced. All of the characters are very well developed and have a very clear set of personality's. The action scenes are very exciting and well directed that you feel the tension for these characters. As a film it succeeds very well as it's well shot and almost flawless acting. Overall, this film succeeds and I would recommend this to anyone, except if you have a short attention spam.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

PikeaxMar 9, 2019

This is based on the extended edition and encompasses all three LotR movies.
This movie is a classic. Tolkien's world is brought to life in truly epic fashion here. Sure it runs long, but that length ensures that nothing in the story is leftThis is based on the extended edition and encompasses all three LotR movies.
This movie is a classic. Tolkien's world is brought to life in truly epic fashion here. Sure it runs long, but that length ensures that nothing in the story is left out. I suggest judging all three Lord of the Rings movies as one collective whole, rather than as three stand alone movies. This trilogy was meant to be watched this way and the experience isn't complete without that.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

LoletinAlexisMar 29, 2020

After many years of having to start this trilogy, I only needed to finish the first one to understand the fanaticism for this literary saga.
Although the fights don't convince me thanks to cameras that move too much without showing much,After many years of having to start this trilogy, I only needed to finish the first one to understand the fanaticism for this literary saga.
Although the fights don't convince me thanks to cameras that move too much without showing much, everything else is simply perfect.
Also some special effects were below the level shown in general, but that was 2001, is understood and forgiven.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

drone41Feb 9, 2018

One of the best movies for sure. First, incredible, but not the best part in trilogy. Brilliant.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

MarvelJoeJan 15, 2019

The first time I saw this movie was on Hulu and at the very beginning of the movie, I was already hook on to the story. The music score and the cinematography are the art form of this film. The visual effects still looks fine for it's time,The first time I saw this movie was on Hulu and at the very beginning of the movie, I was already hook on to the story. The music score and the cinematography are the art form of this film. The visual effects still looks fine for it's time, but stunning beautiful. When it ended, I wanted more.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

Benniexotic123Jul 21, 2018

The first installment in the epic fantasy-adventure trilogy, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is both an enchanting and enriched fantasy picture with a lot of details and intricate plot elements. Following the journey of HobbitThe first installment in the epic fantasy-adventure trilogy, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is both an enchanting and enriched fantasy picture with a lot of details and intricate plot elements. Following the journey of Hobbit Frodo Baggins who travels with 8 other companions on an dangerous quest to destroy the One Ring in Mount Doom so its evil creator Sauron never gets his hold on it. This story capitulated both Tolkien purists and entertainers wanting a thrillride. The movie has an amazing and splendor cast featuring legendary actors like Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee and Sean Bean while also starring Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin amongst many others. Adapting a large novel that was already excellent into a fully fledged fantasy drama masterpiece is not an easy task. But Peter Jackson realized every touch, every visual, every effect, every character moment, every piece of tension and growth creating a lengthy movie that thrills audiences from start till the end. The action is incredible and the movie features both super memorable and super sad moments like Gandalf's confrontation with Durin's Bane (Balrog of Morgoth) to Boromir's untimely death. The movie makes these scenes become a part of you, shape you like a human being, make you feel strong and attached to the situation. Saruman, whose role in the novel wasn't major was suddenly turned into one of the movie's primary villains and it fitted the nature of this film exuberantly. The movie doesn't slow down, it just continued to set-pieces and locations, while also building off conversations and necessary humor into the mold. The movie just works and it just shows how far cinema has transcended throughout the decades. The movie showcases filmaking in its purist form and makes you attached to the story that J.R.R. Tolkien originally crafted. The movie is just a joyride from start to end and definitely one of the best fantasy films ever made and the quinte-essential film of 2001.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

jonslowFeb 16, 2019

indeed,a fabulous work of art......highly captivating movie .....a great start to a highly acclaimed trilogy of cinema...im anticipating a lot to watch the remaining movies of the trilogy...

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

TomtagApr 18, 2019

Everything was great in the movie: the story, the effects, they were all just so wonderful that I had to rate 89/100

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

Cementer200Sep 27, 2020

The Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring is one of the best movies of all time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

AreegosSep 9, 2023

Great start and adaptation. Great, detalized characters, great plot, storyline, amazing costumes and dialogue's.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

noob328Feb 15, 2022

I see it as nearly perfect: It's one of the best fantasy pictures ever made.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

AJ_13Jan 11, 2021

An amazing beginning to the trilogy. Amazing photography and really epic OST. Probably 9/10 of the people that see this one feel obliged to watch TLOTR:THE TWO TOWERS.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

NickTheCritickApr 24, 2022

Great credit to Peter Jackson for transposing the great Talken saga into three masterfully shot and photographed films. Thanks to his imagination Peter Jackson manages to create a fantasy world that offers real cinematic experiences that areGreat credit to Peter Jackson for transposing the great Talken saga into three masterfully shot and photographed films. Thanks to his imagination Peter Jackson manages to create a fantasy world that offers real cinematic experiences that are difficult to forget, both for those who have read the novel and for those who have not read it. The direction was wonderful, as was the idea of shooting everything in New Zealand.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

JJ2FAS4UDec 29, 2021

----------------------------------8.8/10-----------------------------------

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

MikhailSoloJan 12, 2022

The beginning of the great trilogy.The project in which no one believed and did not want to give money, laughed.This is a case when those who laughed went to the ass.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

Manuel189qqSep 22, 2022

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

Manuel89qqNov 1, 2022

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

9

f1rrrrrMay 17, 2023

Great movie with not many battles or adventure but you get into the concept of the trilogy.One of the best movie out there

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

ORJan 5, 2006

The ratio of green to red ratings r around 7 : 3.. tats enough to watch tis movie, story is simple enough, not much use of a brain here to figure it out.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

8

PedroOct 6, 2005

I used to think it was the best movie ever...until i saw part 3 :D. i much prefer the extended DVD cut, which really enhances the movie, bringing up to a 9/10 rating. But RoTK kicks this one's butt!

0 of 1 users found this helpful

8

TimeSep 2, 2010

**** yeah! This **** cinematic glory, **** Fun and logical, this movie is one of the best adaptations of any book; a true master class for any director that strives to transcend the source material. My fave of the series because it has the**** yeah! This **** cinematic glory, **** Fun and logical, this movie is one of the best adaptations of any book; a true master class for any director that strives to transcend the source material. My fave of the series because it has the least boring CGI battle scenes and negligible portions of Orlando Bloom in proportion to the rest of the cast. Toss on the Jiffy-Pop and treat yourself (to the non-extended theatrical).… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

8

tonyGreenMay 27, 2011

My personal favourite of the trilogy. In large part I think due to the score, the strange hypnotic main theme works perfectly and may get stuck in your head. Fans of the books may be disappointed by characters that do not make it to theMy personal favourite of the trilogy. In large part I think due to the score, the strange hypnotic main theme works perfectly and may get stuck in your head. Fans of the books may be disappointed by characters that do not make it to the filmscript, however the adaptation is skilfully done. Because there is room to pace this large work correctly exposition is a joy and not a necessary chore.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

8

JacobJan 5, 2013

Overall, the Fellowship of the Ring is a good film. It takes book and adapts it well to film with only one scene being done wrong, which is a lot better than the Harry Potter films. The pacing is good. This film needed to be long for theOverall, the Fellowship of the Ring is a good film. It takes book and adapts it well to film with only one scene being done wrong, which is a lot better than the Harry Potter films. The pacing is good. This film needed to be long for the scenes to be fleshed out the way they did. Unlike the Hobbit at no point did I feel like the film was dragging until after Moria but I did not like that bit in the book anyway. I… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

gm101Mar 29, 2011

I didn't read the book, but this was a very enjoyable movie and the least complicated Lord of the Rings movie. However, did the movie really have to be that long?

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

8

spadenxDec 1, 2011

It was fine. I think it did get a little bit boring and it didnt peak until they got into Moria. From there and til the end of the film it was a lot better. The acting is ok, Sir Ian McKellen was amazing as Gandalf.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

sanyrubDec 8, 2013

Really good. It´s beautiful, exciting, emotive, epic. It has all that, but you can´t give it a 10. First of all the last part of the trilogy is the best, so you have to reserve it for that one if anything. It´s a really good mix ofReally good. It´s beautiful, exciting, emotive, epic. It has all that, but you can´t give it a 10. First of all the last part of the trilogy is the best, so you have to reserve it for that one if anything. It´s a really good mix of characters, wonderful to see all of them working together. Although the heart of the film and the entire trilogy (especially in the last sequel) is the relationship between Frodo and Sam. It can be all the epic you want when it comes to action, score, visuals, etc, but this is what makes the movie. And this is why many other big budget films fail miserably quality wise. I was going to give this one a 9 but there are a few scenes towards the end that I don´t like too much, a little bit repetitive. Best moments are the beginning of the journey and the whole time the spend in Moria, really exciting.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

JohnnyStephensAug 31, 2013

Good, but not for 10. In some parts is very boring, but in other parts it's very good and epic. The third chapter of the trilogy is the best in my opinion.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

critiMay 2, 2014

the movie, Lord of the Rings is very good, is a film that I recommend to people who like adventure movies, but he has some problems of fidelity to the book, surreal things and poorly explained.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

SrPepeAug 3, 2018

La película es muy buena con una historia excelente, pero falla en el aburrimiento que produce la duración. Igualmente es una obra de arte.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

Aaron_WassermanMay 30, 2016

Personally, my favorite of the Lord of the Rings movies, this movie while, like its sequels, is very long, this one manages to keep me into the story the whole time. I can not say the same for the next films.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

Kirollos-NoahNov 29, 2018

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring presents the impossible as a movie in 2001, the CGI comforted my eyes, I didn't believe that this movie was created in 2001!
I have few problems with this movie:
I found the performance poorThe Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring presents the impossible as a movie in 2001, the CGI comforted my eyes, I didn't believe that this movie was created in 2001!
I have few problems with this movie:
I found the performance poor sometimes.
The story was boring sometimes too.
The direction was most of the times bad, and the slow motion blew it up for me!
The soundtrack didn't comfort my ears most of he time.
That's all for me!
The story was not that powerful, but it was unique, new and cool!
The CGI -AS I SAID- is full of eye-popping special effects!!!!
The journey was completely thrilling and amazing!!!
The action sequence was brilliantly made, and thrilling too!
This movie contains a lot of things that can make easily a great movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

BruterakeAug 18, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. É difícil acreditar que isso daqui foi feito em 2001, as cidades e a coreografias das lutas são muito boas e os orcs então mil vezes melhor que os do Hobbit, digo mais essas 4 horas passam voando na versão estendida. DIVERSÃO BOM PA KRL Aliás Gandalf dançando break irado, Eddard Stark nunca da sorte em primeiro filme ou temporada e slc é muito homo o sam e o frodo acho que dava pra fazer um romance se n fosse filme de antigamente kkkkkkkk.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

GodRatiyDec 12, 2020

If you like Epic Stories This is a good watch.
But all 6 movies are great in chronological order.
The band of brother. AUJ The finding of treasure. TDOS The betrayal of the group. TBOTFA The building of the team. TFOTR The lost hopes of theIf you like Epic Stories This is a good watch.
But all 6 movies are great in chronological order.
The band of brother. AUJ
The finding of treasure. TDOS
The betrayal of the group. TBOTFA
The building of the team. TFOTR
The lost hopes of the team. TTT
And the death of the Hero. TROTK

In the first 3 you can see the rise and fall of the Hero arc, then in the last 3 you see the rise and death of the Apprentice turned Hero.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

iCampoRamilNov 16, 2021

Donde todo empezó, y gracias a Dios. De las mejores trilogías que el mundo ha parido.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

TheSikvelOct 14, 2021

Great movie. Despite its duration, it is absolutely not boring. The first film is essentially a trailer for all of the following parts, but this trailer will turn out to be much better than many other films. The special effects for their yearGreat movie. Despite its duration, it is absolutely not boring. The first film is essentially a trailer for all of the following parts, but this trailer will turn out to be much better than many other films. The special effects for their year are simply unimaginable, but now they can hurt your eyes. The plot is captivating.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

liamexeOct 11, 2022

Simply the first few minutes wow me. A less accomplished filmmaker than Peter Jackson would have jumped right into the Party and left the audience hopelessly disoriented because Lord of the Rings is a highly intricate film. Peter Jackson,Simply the first few minutes wow me. A less accomplished filmmaker than Peter Jackson would have jumped right into the Party and left the audience hopelessly disoriented because Lord of the Rings is a highly intricate film. Peter Jackson, however, refrained from doing so. He created a fantastic prologue with Cate Blanchett's mesmerising voice that truly provides all the information required. The instant she said, "The world has altered," I thought, I anticipated it would be a treat.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

GavinCJul 28, 2009

The biggest thing that ticked me off was the character of Frodo, who seemed a bit too 'I'm-so-heroic'.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

7

SebHMay 31, 2010

OK, so it's a pioneering movie with some of the best special effects in existence, but that all seems to be a mask for this film's numerous flaws, namely the incredible broadness, the truly awful scripting and expository dialogue OK, so it's a pioneering movie with some of the best special effects in existence, but that all seems to be a mask for this film's numerous flaws, namely the incredible broadness, the truly awful scripting and expository dialogue ("Even the smallest person can change the course of history"), and I know it's a small-ish gripe but the soundtrack is TERRIBLE; alternating between overstated portentous and sickeningly saccharine. Granted, it's incredible that they managed to make a film out of the book, but the execution could have been a hell of a lot more understated and slick.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

7

CephalonJan 24, 2013

This film starts out slowly but I am okay with this, given the character development that occurs for Gandalf, Frodo, and Sam. I found this film brilliantly directed, but Peter Jackson seemed to be unsure of himself during the first half ofThis film starts out slowly but I am okay with this, given the character development that occurs for Gandalf, Frodo, and Sam. I found this film brilliantly directed, but Peter Jackson seemed to be unsure of himself during the first half of the film. The film's second half also had a different, gritty feel compared to the first half, which I both liked and disliked, overall, I found this film to have a strong plot, great action, and one strong scene after another… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

mds03Apr 14, 2013

It was good but let's face it, it was an hour too long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The running time is really the only problem though. Everything else in this movie that's good makes up for it. Great special effects, great story, great acting, greatIt was good but let's face it, it was an hour too long!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The running time is really the only problem though. Everything else in this movie that's good makes up for it. Great special effects, great story, great acting, great combat scenes, and a great script.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

ZerpnosMar 5, 2017

Sinema tarihinin Kült filmlerinden olan Yüzüklerin Efendisinin ilk filmi olan Yüzük Kardeşliği;
Fantastik, Orta çağ ve edebiyat seven biri olarak bence beklentilerimi karşılamıyor. İlk film olarak konuyu anlatım açısından gayet yeterli olanSinema tarihinin Kült filmlerinden olan Yüzüklerin Efendisinin ilk filmi olan Yüzük Kardeşliği;
Fantastik, Orta çağ ve edebiyat seven biri olarak bence beklentilerimi karşılamıyor. İlk film olarak konuyu anlatım açısından gayet yeterli olan film Aksiyonu fazla veremiyor ve İyi bir film oluyor.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

StavNeuseJul 17, 2018

You can't deny it's astounding special effects and brilliant editing, along with its veteran cast and award-winning performances. The first half, I must admit, lags a little bit. But after that, things move forward and the action rises, itYou can't deny it's astounding special effects and brilliant editing, along with its veteran cast and award-winning performances. The first half, I must admit, lags a little bit. But after that, things move forward and the action rises, it get's intense, and shocks you.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

glommanDec 31, 2019

Out of all the LOTR movies this one is the most boring one in my opinion, it's still a great and, most of all, important movie that belongs into any LOTR marathon, but it just can't hold up to the other two.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

HeroicAge616Oct 26, 2021

Fellowship provides an exciting start to this adaptation of the classic Tolkien books, even if there is a severe lack of relatable characters.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

FIDGID_CRITICApr 6, 2022

I agree with the "Must-see" sticker, but the ratings from users (as well as on IMDB) are grossly overrated.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

JohnnyYouHitMeAug 10, 2022

A hit-and-miss movie. The cast is a mixed bag with Lee, Holm and Blanchett the best of the bunch (Wood, Mortensen & McKellen the worst) but the characterisation in general was terrible. Aragorn the 'reluctant' hero? Why? Gimli, Merry & PippinA hit-and-miss movie. The cast is a mixed bag with Lee, Holm and Blanchett the best of the bunch (Wood, Mortensen & McKellen the worst) but the characterisation in general was terrible. Aragorn the 'reluctant' hero? Why? Gimli, Merry & Pippin are all clowns etc. There were some good dramatic locations to film in New Zealand (Switzerland would've been better) but the Shire ended up looking like a plastic tellytubby land. It's entertaining enough as a action movie though, so 7/10… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

GiugiOct 2, 2022

First chapter of the undisputed fantasy masterpiece saga that made all viewers dream. Too bad that the film in its entirety of its duration is too slow and too poor in events so as to be too long-winded prequel of what will later be the realFirst chapter of the undisputed fantasy masterpiece saga that made all viewers dream. Too bad that the film in its entirety of its duration is too slow and too poor in events so as to be too long-winded prequel of what will later be the real film, and this is a great shame as the characters are very beautiful and very well presented. , but the whole is suffocated by the extreme slowness with which everything, including things with more action, happens. For heaven's sake the film is very nice and the settings are also breathtaking and this is a great positive note to the whole, even the story is compelling but as the first chapter it is really too slow.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Manucci555Aug 20, 2023

A typical fantasy flick I was fond of when I was a child, before a realization that it matters very little.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

EricRJun 16, 2009

It suffers from meandering moments that lag the story, choppy editing, and underdeveloped characters. But it somehow managed to hold my attention thanks to the amazing enthralling world Jackson has realized for the big screen and the flawless cast.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

6

RikiegeFeb 4, 2013

Possibly people for a good movie, but for me it is another of those movies fun to hang out.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

dyshpoMar 22, 2015

1. choppy editing in non action scenes.
2. way to slow character development.
3. to much screen time devoted to unneeded scenery brochure.
4. not enough focus on Languages
5. nazgul impotence.
6. no magic battles.

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

5

ChristopherEMay 7, 2009

One of the more over-rated films of the 21st century that owes it's success more to nostalgia than to taste.

7 of 41 users found this helpful

5

JmsbppJul 22, 2013

mucha a charla y poca accion para una pelicula que lo tenia todo para un hermoso 10, efectos, tema, actuacion, personajes, paisajes y falto accion lo cual bajo la calificacion

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

emirbudFeb 7, 2021

I disliked this movie right from the start, because it is not true to the book. Sauron was not defeated by dumb accident. He was overpowered and thrown to the ground, and then Isuldur cut the ring from his hand. Further, I did not like actorI disliked this movie right from the start, because it is not true to the book. Sauron was not defeated by dumb accident. He was overpowered and thrown to the ground, and then Isuldur cut the ring from his hand. Further, I did not like actor choices for some of the characters or their acting, namely Frodo, or any of the Hobbits for that matter. I struggled to watch the scenes with Hobbits, and those were many. Maybe Sam would have been ok with different Frodo. Ian Mckellen was kind of okay as Gandalf, but I wish Sean Connery had accepted the role. I did not like Vigo Mortensen for Aragorn, especially since "Carlito's Way" was still fresh in my mind, and I don't like him now either. The rest of the movie(s) is ok I guess, and that's the best I can say. Actors playing Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman saved the day, and the rest of the cast were decent enough.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

HISHEhebJul 8, 2014

סרט ממש משעמם, הדמות היחידה שמעניינת הכל הטרילוגיה הזו לא בדיוק נמצאת שם, ואין שום רגע אחד מרגש או מותח, אתם לא תתחברו לדמויות כל כך, אין רגע שתזכרו מהסרט עד שתרדמוסרט ממש משעמם, הדמות היחידה שמעניינת הכל הטרילוגיה הזו לא בדיוק נמצאת שם, ואין שום רגע אחד מרגש או מותח, אתם לא תתחברו לדמויות כל כך, אין רגע שתזכרו מהסרט עד שתרדמו

1 of 8 users found this helpful17

All this user's reviews

3

FairbottomMay 23, 2018

Appearances can be very deceiving. Upon first glance, this seems like a boring and stupid film about a troupe of short people who have to take a ring somewhere that's of some consequence. But this is much too literal an interpretation. TheAppearances can be very deceiving. Upon first glance, this seems like a boring and stupid film about a troupe of short people who have to take a ring somewhere that's of some consequence. But this is much too literal an interpretation. The movie is actually an elaborate metaphor for something else, which is also boring and stupid.

People often miss this nuance.… Expand

0 of 10 users found this helpful010

All this user's reviews

0

KenCApr 25, 2010

It's generally accepted that when adapting a book you invariably end up removing scenes. A filmmaker's responsibility to the source material is to capture the essence of it with some respect. Jackson manages to only capture the It's generally accepted that when adapting a book you invariably end up removing scenes. A filmmaker's responsibility to the source material is to capture the essence of it with some respect. Jackson manages to only capture the surface layer of the story and by adding a good 100 minutes of additional scenes that are not in the book he lets the source down badly. Some argue that it is a "reimagining" and that it was impossible to film otherwise which is nonsense. The added and erroneous scenes could easily have been replaced with some of the key ones that were removed. Tom Bombadil in "Fellowship" for example, and "The Scouring Of The Shire" which was critical to Return Of The King as you see how the members of the fellowship were so changed by their experiences. Replacing such critical scenes with dross shows a complete lack of respect for the source. In the end Jackson's LOTR is all sound and fury signifying nothing more than the filmmakers ego. What an awful waste.… Expand

1 of 29 users found this helpful

0

MikeF.Jul 25, 2006

Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was the impression I had that Jackson thought he was creating a work of art. What a joke. In fact, I wish it were a joke -- a bunch of one-dimensional characters speaking a sort of bad-Shakespeare dialect. Good lord.… Expand

5 of 59 users found this helpful

0

NiggAOct 23, 2007

It sucked my left nut on the right side bullshit it sucked both the balls freestyle that shit and eat it.

1 of 28 users found this helpful

0

Tomas_AJul 20, 2022

Unrealistic, false, boring and a thousand more aspects for not to see it, stupid, watching that movie is an idiocy.

1 of 10 users found this helpful19

All this user's reviews

0

IThristaNSep 10, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Wtf **** dworfs i hate this!!! lol its not cannon guys lets rait this on 0. Report report… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

User Reviews