The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 500: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 4994 reviews in total 

9 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

An absolutely incredible film!

Author: Eric Rice (NRGWasp) from Seattle, WA, USA
2 May 2002

Simply incredible. Never before have I seen a 3 hour movie that didn't seem like 3 hours. I read the Lord of the Rings very recently and I was surprised at how similar Peter Jackson's vision was to my own.

Now about the omissions and alterations. I'm not a crazed fanatic who gets worked up over every little detail. I didn't mind Arwen's inflation and I'm actually glad Tom Bombadil was scrubbed (I felt Tom Bombadil was an unnecessary addition to the book). Despite these minor changes, the screenplay stays extremely close to the book and flows very very well (and the prologue was a nice touch).

The acting was flawless. As I've read many many times in other reviews, McKellen doesn't play Gandalf, he IS Gandalf. Wood, Mortensen, Holm, Astin, everyone was fantastic. My hat's off to Sean Bean who delivers an excellent performance as Boromir, a character who's intentions are good but wrestles with the corrupting power of the Ring. Bean portrays it VERY well. Oh, and Andy Serkis does a PERFECT Gollum voice. It's EXACTLY as I imagined it myself.

The special effects were incredible, the cave troll, the balrog, Gollum, and Sauron's Eye all looked amazing. I was also very impressed by the seamless shrinking of the vertically challenged characters.

What's wrong with this movie? I have no idea... I thought everything was perfect. MY biggest gripe is having to wait an entire year to see The Two Towers!

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

From the beginning...

Author: dee.reid from United States
3 August 2005

...I wasn't sure anyone would have ever guessed (except in a 2004 Fangoria magazine article written by Mexican visionary Guillermo del Toro) that New Zealand native Peter Jackson, the director behind the "goriest movie ever made" (1992's "Dead Alive"), would have been behind the epic three-film installment of "The Lord of the Rings" saga, which include "The Fellowship of the Ring" (2001), "The Two Towers" (2002), and Best Picture Oscar-winner "The Return of the King" (2003).

***Note*** This comment applies to all three movies, as it will be posted at each individual web page.

Not since "Star Wars" has this much hype surrounded films of this magnitude. But I guess such hype exists because J.R.R. Tolkien's books have one of the largest devoted fanbases of any popular reading material. I've never read Tolkien's original books, though several readers as well as fans of the movies have told me such knowledge is not required when viewing "The Lord of the Rings" films. "The Lord of the Rings" is the biggest movie I've ever seen, and there's a whole lot of story, 12+ hours to be exact, and I've spent the last two days viewing the extended versions of all three movies and they are breathtaking. There are many dazzling special effects shots over the course of the trilogy and epic battle sequences to put you in awe (many of which, in my view, do push the limits of the "PG-13" rating), not because it's action but because of how precise Jackson's direction is, and how unflinching the camera becomes when it's time for battle. The rousing, epic score by Howard Shore helps the viewer get "into" Jackson's vision of Middle-earth, and into the characters and on-screen action. Jackson has also breathtakingly transformed his New Zealand homeland into Tolkien's Middle-earth and when you watch these movies, you feel like you're really there, with the rest of its inhabitants. It is also pretty frightening too, with many jump scenes including the frequent and violent battle sequences between our heroes and "The Enemy," who include the brutish Orcs, Moria Orcs, Ringwraiths, and the unreal entity Sauron. And lastly, the cast does much more than bring the action to life, but instead live ("live" is italicized) their parts. Of course, I'm talking about the young Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin), who come into possession of the ancient One Ring and must journey to the hellish land Mordor to cast the talisman into a river of lava and bring its reign of evil to an end. Along the way, two other Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), necromancer Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), warrior Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Boromir (Sean Bean), elf Legalos (Orlando Bloom), and dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) aid them in their quest - together as a "fellowship of the ring." There are also plenty of other fantastic supporting roles from Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith plays a good guy), and Andy Serkis as the voice of the ever-creepy Gollum. I think J.R.R. Tolkien would be proud of Peter Jackson's take on his material, despite comments I've heard his son has made in undermining the director's vision. Someone once called "The Lord of the Rings" the greatest fantasy epic ever made; they were right.


Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Brilliant and Intelligent

Author: Aaron Sticht from United States
9 August 2005

For those of you like myself who are fans of the books of the same name,you will not be disappointed by this movie. Unlike the animated versions that have previously been made where much of the story was condensed either for budgetary constraints or time limits, the Fellowship of the Ring while it does take a few shortcuts, there are very few. It is very exciting getting to see places that up until now have been purely figments of my imagination portrayed by someones elses imagination on the silver screen. I felt myself holding my breath waiting to see the various locations of middle earth and how others have dreamed of them. The movie does a breathtaking job in transporting the viewer to this other world and does so with magic good enough to be from the hand of Gandalf himself. Yes, there are places where for dramatic reasons or to prevent a lengthy historical context that certain events from the book were either shortened, modified or changed. These changes however do not change the storyline itself and makes for a very entertaining movie. I do feel however that if you are one of the uninitiated, it would serve you to either read the book before going, or immediately after the film pick up a copy and read it as it will provide more breadth to the story than what an almost three hour film can portray. In addition, there are several scenes in the book that while not central to the main story, add more to the lore of middle earth and help to explain some of the history leading up to the time of the story. The characterizations in the film were very well done and the choices of the actors to play the hobbits were perfect. While I was somewhat anxious to have Elijah Wood as Frodo and Sean Astin as Samwise, after seeing how well they were portrayed on film left me no doubt that these actors did a very admirable job bringing the characters to life. The majority of the cast has some English accent which was my main concern. Both the principle American actors portrayed a passable English type accent themselves which helped prevent them standing out on their own. How the filmmakers made several average height men such as Wood and Astin, and probably more so John Rhys Davies as Gimli appear much smaller than their Elvish or human companions is spellbinding. Special effects in this movie while at first don't really seem to be that obvious eventually take on a more obvious tone as the fellowship moves further into the adventure. As one would expect from a magical world, many things which we take for granted from reading the books are very difficult to accurately portray in a live action presentation. The filmmakers not only did a good job, they surpassed by far my expectations and truly made the experience an enjoyable and fulfilling one. As with any film where there will be sequels coming out, the ending left me longing for December 2002 to follow our adventurers further on their quest.

I will caution parents who are thinking of taking their children to see this movie that it is not a movie made or intended for children. Much Parental Guidance and forethought should be taken before taking children under 12 to this film. Aside from a film which lasts almost three hours in length where much of the dialogue while important to the story is not well suited to entertain small children. In addition, several of the creatures created for the film will probably terrify younger audiences. If you want to take your children to see this film, I might caution you to view it without them first and then decide to take them on your own judgement. Hey, if you do see it first without them, you can see it again right? I plan on seeing it more than once anyway. All in all, this is a well developed motion picture where a great deal of thought went into it's development and execution. I am thankful to the filmmakers for having the courage to tackle such a well known, well loved story with an audience that has a very well organized preconceived notion of how they view the world of Tolkien. The filmmakers did the book justice and that is the bottom line unlike Bakshi's version of 1978 which was a disappointment at best and unfinished as it's final release turned out to be.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Truly one of the greatest films ever made and is one of the best movies of all time!

Author: Movie Nuttball from U.S.A.
7 March 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Minor Spoilers

I finally got to see the Lord of the Rings a few days ago in the theatre and I must I was very thrilled see a huge movie of this stature. For months I wanted to see this because of several reasons but the biggest one of them was Christopher Lee! I knew he was going to be awesome in this movie which he was.This cast was great and it was a treat seeing Ian Holm in it aswell.I knew LOTR was going to be one of the greatest movies ever and I just love the scenery in this movie and the special effects were flawless and it has great music by Howard Shore. There was so much in the three hour movie that I can`t explain it all but I will say it has great battles and sword fights,and seeing the variety of character is neat like wizards,trolls,dwarfs,hobbits,elvs,and among other creatures and a awesome prolouge.This in MY opinion ranks up in the greatest of films and this is on MY favorites list now just not fantasy movies like Willow and Legend but other of MY favorites like other great films such The Mummy/The Mummy Returns,Planet of the Apes (2001),Jurassic Park trilogy,Star Wars (all four of them),Gladiator,Terminator 2,Predator,and others.I just can`t wait for the sequels to come.Be sure to get all of the LOTR action figures by Toy Biz and they look great! I was very happy to see this film and I hope everyone gets a chance to see this epic!

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Embrace the power of the Ring...

Author: Max_cinefilo89 from Italy
11 December 2005

I've always loved fantasy and science-fiction novels, and I'm very grateful for that, since the movie adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring is one of the reasons I fell in love with movies (the other reasons are Spider-Man, Casablanca, The Godfather and Pulp Fiction), it's so incredibly excellent. Some people refer to the Lord of the Rings trilogy as my generation's Star Wars (I was 12 when TFOTR was released), but I actually think it's better than Star Wars, and basically for one reason: the way director Peter Jackson has brought Tolkien's beloved classic to the screen.

Jackson has perfectly understood CGI is nothing but a tool that enables the filmmaker to tell stories more easily: while in Star Wars we see dozens of different worlds, which are visually stunning but appear for only a couple of minutes (or seconds), in LOTR everything we see is there to make sure the story goes on. Oh, another important thing too: in this movie, plot and character come first, the visuals are added later. The director takes his time to introduce the various inhabitants of Middle Earth and the chain of events that will change their lives forever. The movie is almost three hours long, so what? It's a story we really care about, and the characters make us feel for them every single moment: we cheer with Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) when he learns he won't have to face his difficult task alone; we laugh with them when Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) make fools of themselves; we cry and worry with them when things start getting bad...

That's probably also the reason for which this movie is superior to its sequels (N.B. I'm talking about the so-called "theatrical versions"): in parts 2 and 3, important moments of character development are ditched in favor of long, breathtaking battles, and the audience knows something's missing. That's not the case of The Fellowship of the Ring: the extended version is better, that's true, but the first movie is the one with the least deleted minutes, and therefore the one that feels less incomplete than the others.

As I said before, Jackson values characters more than effects, and he uses the latter only to tell the story more successfully, so that the world where those people live will look more realistic on screen; now, since the characters are more important, the cast is a crucial element, and luckily the actors chosen for this movie are pure perfection: Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Dom Monaghan and Billy Boyd are career-best as the four hobbits, the most vulnerable members of the Fellowship, therefore the ones we care about the most; Viggo Mortensen is 100% convincing as the conflicted, layered Aragorn; Ian McKellen gives Gandalf the Grey the warmth and wisdom he deserves, and finally, Christopher Lee is just THE only actor who could flawlessly play the Darth Vader-like good-turned-bad Saruman, proving once again he's the N°1 choice when it comes to casting someone as the really bad guy. Like Dracula, he has gloriously resurrected to spread horror another time.

An amazing beginning for an even more amazing trilogy, perhaps the best I've ever had the pleasure to see. Should have won Best Picture of 2001 (as well as Director and Adapted Screenplay).

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them... well, you know the rest!

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

An Amazing Achievement

Author: Fayaz Zulfikar Meghani from Sydney
13 April 2003

'The Lord of the Rings' is one of my favorite books, I have read it several times, and remember thinking the last time, about 3 years ago that if I made a film I'd want to make it of this, but wouldn't it be almost impossible. You can then imagine how strong my expectations were when I went to see the eagerly awaited first installment.

This film impressed me hugely, more than anything else because of how true it was to my imagination, both in the characters as well as in the effects and setting- a sentiment I have heard consistently from other fans of the books. Elijah Wood brought across the character of Frodo with the kind of haunted, frail courage that Tolkien captures so well in the books. Nor could I find any fault at all with Ian McKellan's Gandalf, Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn, and Sean Bean's Boromir, all of whom I thought were portrayed excellently. I could pick out instances where I did think, 'no, that's not right', however their seldomness in number would only serve to illustrate the excellence of the overall portrayal. One thing that did stand out for me was Cate Blanchett's performance as Galadriel, the part itself became so perfunctory in the film that to me her alternation between benevolent seer, and figure of potential terror seemed little more than a slightly confusing detour with no real connection into the plot other than as a vehicle for a glimpse into the future. But that was it.

I thought that the points where Jackson did deviate from the text were completely the correct ones to do so. Shortening the opening Shire scenes and cutting out the whole Tom Bombadil bit was great since frankly they bored me slightly in the book anyway. Also, expanding the role of Arwen was a sensible decision.

However this film is by no means above criticism. The dialogue was in my opinion terrible and purely there to drive on the plot. Normally this would ruin a film for me (as in "The Matrix"), making it almost intolerable to view, however fortunately here it proves little more than a minor irritation. Also, the film seemed overall to be excessively plot-driven and at times a mad dash from one action scene to another, the characters, for all their truth to the book did seem flat and sometimes little more than stereotypical fantasy characters. This is perhaps my major quarrel with the film- I would have liked these characters to have come alive as people in a way that was made impossible by the sparseness of the script and the rollercoaster nature of the plot. In general the whole film lacked the depth of context that I think distinguishes Tolkien from other fantasy writers. However to have achieved this would have required a very different movie, and you can't fault an action film for being an action film.

This movie is undoubtedly not for everyone. A lot of people just don't get fantasy- other than Lord of the Rings, I don't particularly either. However in my opinion Jackson really has made an incredible achievement- his and Tolkien's vision carried through suberbly by a breathtaking setting and stunning special effects, as well as by a cast clearly as enthralled as he was. He has taken on a huge task, and is dealing with it with breathtaking success. Check for other user comments.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

"Remember what Bilbo used to say, it's dangerous business Frodo, going out the door."

Author: classicsoncall from United States
22 December 2005

When I first read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy back in the early 1970's, I recall saying to myself that the story would make a wonderful movie. "Star Wars" still hadn't come out yet, and realizing that the available technology could not do justice to the fantastic world presented by J.R.R. Tolkien, it was simply best left to the imagination.

Well, imagination has found life in "The Fellowship of the Ring", a truly profound epic that sets the standard for film fantasy, just as the books did for the written word. Upon first seeing it during it's initial release, I couldn't have been happier with the amount of detail it offered while remaining true to the original adventure. Everyone imagines what a story and characters look like in their own mind; it was as if Peter Jackson tapped a great cosmic consciousness to deliver a tale that captured the tone and pacing of the novel dead on.

I feel that readers of the trilogy have a leg up on the characters and locations of Middle Earth, as they are revealed in the film quickly and with nominal explanation. For example, when the Black Riders appear for the first time, it's difficult to grasp what they're all about, other than the fact that they're after the ring. Strider's explanation of the Nazgul is perfect - ring wraiths who were once men, neither alive nor dead, who always feel the power of the ring. Coming to the movie with that understanding ahead of time helps the viewer have a greater appreciation of the action taking place.

The real magic of the movie for me is the seamless manner in which the various races coexist and interact with each other. Though levels of unfamiliarity and distrust appear, can anyone coming out of the movie doubt that elves, dwarfs, hobbits and wizards actually exist. Even orcs and evil Uruk hai have a place in this world, for without the danger they pose there is no triumph.

If the movie captures your imagination and you haven't read the trilogy or it's prequel "The Hobbit", you'll be doing yourself a favor to do so. There in even more exquisite detail are nuances such as Elvish poetry and additional characters that provide more depth and color to the world of Middle Earth. It's a world easy to get lost in, and makes one appreciate a writer of legendary proportion who invented a land, people, and language all of his own that can now be shared with everyone.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Brilliant and peerless

Author: Marcus Eden-Ellis from United Kingdom
30 July 2005

If you are reading this review (or indeed any other) trying to assess whether or not you should watch this film then please read no further and just go and slip in the DVD (Extended Version) and let the sights and sounds of Middle Earth wash over you. Nothing I, or indeed anyone else, can say should help you to form an opinion prior to watching. I guess the audience for the three films fall into two distinct categories; those who have read the books and those who have not. Those who have not, in my experience, tend to be overwhelmed by the absolute majesty of the vision but a little non-plussed by the actual story - seeing it as just some rather dopey fantasy; a Star Wars trilogy set in past times for the modern audience if you like. Then there is the "yes, I have read the books" class who in general seem to have a kind of smug arrogance grounded in comments such as "they left out too much", "its not what I imagined" or "Of course its all an allegory for the rise of the third Reich".

Tolkein bemoaned the lack of an heroic mythology for the English people and he sought to create one in his Rings trilogy of books. My opinion is too humble to count - but if you want it, I believe he succeeded. The epic backdrop, the heroes and villains, the rich history, the races and the languages are all utterly plausible as a long cherished story handed down over many generations. Peter Jackson and his team must be congratulated not only for their wonderful realisation of Middle Eath and its inhabitants; but for crafting a series a movies that captured the very essence of what Tolkein was trying to achieve.

Well done also for leaving out Tom Bombadil.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Great spectacle, bad script

Author: David from California
22 December 2001

Tracking all the making of information leading up to the film, it seemed like Jackson was doing a great job. The scenery, props, casting, makeup, and effects all seemed beautifully authentic. And in action, they deliver. But the script (it's always a danger when you see three writers and one of them is the director) spoils the magic.

It's more than making Arwen's role more significant (and a completely different character) in a blatant attempt to beef up the roles for women. I didn't like that, but women's roles are admittedly sadly lacking in the original story. It's that Jackson puts his clumsy fingerprints all over Tolkien's themes and tells the story from the perspective of Men. Apparently, modern moviegoers need to identify with their race. (Side note: all the critics who say how the movie has preserved the magic of the books probably haven't read them since college.)

The relationship between the four hobbits isn't set up at all in the movie; aside from Frodo the other three hobbits seem thrown into the quest by chance. Rather than being a reluctant, conflicted hero, Frodo is praised by all the other characters but actually does little but squeal, get stabbed, and look on the elves in wonder. Saruman (a lesser character in the fiction who only appears the first book through Gandalf's recollection) takes up far too much time in the movie. And by the end we've seen Sauron's eye so much I wonder there's anything to reveal of the dark lord in the second and third movies. I expected changes, but I fail to see the rationale for many of Jackson's edits--they don't make the story better or the action flow more smoothly.

The Lord of the Rings is an elegiac tale of the passing of magic from the world and of the heroic struggles of those races passing from the world to preserve goodness. In Jackson's eyes, history is told from the perspective of the victors, the Men. Hobbits, who drive the action in the books, are along for the ride while Aragorn, Boromir, et al are the real protagonists in the movie.

I give Jackson full credit for taking on a task of this scale and achieving an epic feel. If only he'd started with a script as good as his scenery.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Haven't felt this excited since I was a 12 year old kid

Author: coldnakedman from USA
25 July 2002

Whether it was the opening action sequences or the finale, my heart rate was going a mile a minute watching this movie. FOTR did everything every other fantasy film should have done; it had fantastic creatures and beings that had previously only appeared in my dreams and my imagination. Jackson did a tremendous job making tangible what I previously had to visualize by reading the books. Without getting too specific and spoiling the ending, my only critique of the movie was that it was a little anti-climatic. Then again, the book was also anti-climatic because it was the first part of a trilogy.

I would also like to comment about how many people have compared Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone to this film. My advice is to see them both, don't compare them, and enjoy the each as the great stories they are.

This is one of those movies that I will watch over and over again and never get tired of. It wasn't boring. It didn't lack action. It wasn't overhyped. The acting was good. And those that said it had too many "Scenery" shots should consider Doctor was 4 hours of trains and snow, but still a classic! Give this movie a shot, and enjoy it for what it is; the visualization of a classic tale.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 500: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history