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 guide
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
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 510: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 5096 reviews in total 

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A truly great movie, whether you're a fantasy fan or not

Author: Skeletors_Hood ( from Kansas City
19 July 2002

I knew from the first time I saw the preview that this was a movie that I wanted to see. Now, I have never picked up a Tolkien book, and the only story I ever knew was the Hobbit, and that was from the animated movie.

Now, let me make my observations of some of the reviews listed here, and I must say that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and here is mine. If you don't like this movie, pronouncing it as boring and too long, then you obviously don't have the patience to watch a great movie, more like you love the hacked off 88 min movie that has no real script to speak of, and only took 2 months to film. Which is fine, because I like those movies as well,but also I personally love a movie that took a lot of work, and is also very spectacular as a result. Titanic comes to mind, for one. I want substance in a movie, and LotR delivers. It is a true work of art, unlike (someone mentioned "Fight Club" ???? A classic?! I think not). If you only thought of it as boring, then you were only looking for action and no story, in which case the latest Van Damme movie would have fulfilled your expectations.

What I truly loved about this movie wasn't just the scenery, but the acting as well. Each part was brought to life perfectly, and the actors had great chemistry together. I especially loved Ian as Gandalf, and I must also give a great nod to Christopher Lee, who has always made a great villain. The action was well placed and suspenseful, and everything looked as I would expect a fantasy world to look like.

Overall a very well made movie. If you hate it, then maybe it's over your head.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A Matter of Visions

Author: happiscotsman from Chicago, IL
16 July 2002

Roger Ebert only gave this film three stars because he felt it did not meet his personal criteria for what the movie should be like. But that is what Peter Jackson has been embellishing ever since he started on this nearly eight-year odyssey. It is Jackson's view of how HE would want the movie to be made. On that note, this film has been worth the three years I have spent salivating over any and every web site designed to proclaim the greatest film series ever ("Star Wars" has lost its edge, and "The Matrix" has too narrow an appeal). The only reason I found out these movies were being made was because I was curious what Sean Bean had been up to. This was in 1998, and the wait was well worth it. New Zealand was the PERFECT place for filming Middle Earth, and Jackson does a fine job in making sense of the epic novel. The actors were all fine in their roles, although I still long for Sean Connery as Gandalf, even though Sir Ian McKellen did get an Academy Award nomination. Personally, I though the best performances were by Sean Astin and Sean Bean (Have I already shown my bias for the only man who could play Richard Sharpe?) And while the action scenes are quite engaging, the Rivendell scene stands out as my favorite. The first shots capture the mystery and splendor of Middle Earth's most enchanting and enigmatic characters, the Eldar (Elves to you non-readers of the novels). Howard Shore's Oscar-winning score is no better the here, with the ghostly chorus holding their notes as the Hobbits stroll mesmerized through this strange and beautiful land. The imagery is so engaging that the audience cannot help but be swept away as well. This is what movie-making is all about folks, and if you miss this, you've missed a lot.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:


Author: SteveB Ohio from Ohio, USA
9 July 2002

Reading the other reviews here, it seems that people either loved this movie or they hated it. It also seems that those who say they hated it don't give any concrete reasons other than they don't seem to "get the point." The same is true of the books that this series is based on: some people think them to be the best works of fiction of all time, while others think they are nonsense. Well, you can count me firmly in the "loved it" camp!

Ever since I first read these books in the '70s I have hoped that someone would make them into movies. (My other hope is that someone would take on the project of making quality film versions of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy," but that's a different story!) The animated version was mediocre at best, but this one is breathtaking! Never mind the minor differences between the film and the books, this has got to be the best adaptation of book to cinema that I have ever seen. I would dare say that it is even the best film of any type that I have seen.

Why? If you are one of those who "don't get it," I can't offer anything to convince you. Let's just say that this movie brings to life the incredible world that J.R.R. Tolkein created in a way that transcends simple fantasy. The characters and places are believable as real rather than mere creations of a fairy tale world. The story has more substance than the comic book style of the Star Wars series. The action is gripping. The visual effects are stunning. There is genuine emotion, from joy to despair. The acting is flawless. And through the entire experience, there is the constant theme of pure good versus pure evil; and staying true to one's friends and commitments regardless of how bad things get. And it does it without being preachy about it: it is totally free of the absurd political correctness that infects so many other films.

This movie hits on all cylinders. The first time I saw it, I was in a theater that was completely packed. Nobody got up during its three hour length. There was no whispering or other signs of inattention. When it was over and the lights came on, there was a continued hush that was almost reverent. When people started to get up, I heard comments like "It's going to be a long year." (Meaning, of course, it will be a long wait until the second installment is released this December.)

The only flaw I can find is that it was too fast-paced in some places, resulting in some parts of the story being a blur for those who aren't already familiar with the books. Even so, the three hours go by very quickly and leave you wanting to see more of the story. That will have to wait until the end of this year!

For those who haven't yet seen it, I would strongly recommend reading the books (or at least read The Fellowship of the Ring) and then rent or buy the dvd when it is released this August.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Three Rings for the Elven Kings, Under The Sky........

Author: Bob_Tanaka
8 July 2002

I wish I could quote the whole poem. The Lord of the Rings is, far and away, the BEST MOVIE OF 2001!!! And #2 of all time!!! Right behind the Star Wars trilogy (which I count as one movie) and right above the Longest Day. The movie does it's best to follow the books (and cuts out several pointless parts) and is just as I pictured it. AMZING acting, UNBELEAVIBLE fx, AND ALL AROUND ONE OF THE MOST SPECTACULAR MOVIE OF ALL TIME!!! 10/10!!! and I only resurve that for the BEST the most FLAWLESS of movies!!! Nominated for 13 academy awards and should've won all of them!!! but the academy ALWAYS goes for the artsy movies!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Amazing, breathtaking, brilliantly wonderful!!

Author: rachi1409 from Australia
6 July 2002

This film is the most amazing journey I have ever been on. Not only was the movie enjoyable at the time, but I am holding my breath until the next one comes out! Although there are many characters in this film, it is made simple to follow and absolutley entertaining to watch. There is no lack in performance, particularly by Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins), Orlando Bloom (Legolas), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn), and Hugo Weaving (Elrond), oh yeah and Elijah Wood (Frodo Baggins) oh and also Cate Blanchett (Galadrial)..did I also mention Liv Tyler??? (Arwen). Look, the whole cast is just amazing, I really can't complain about lack of talent, and believe me, I'm picky. Don't go and see this movie if you are looking for just something short and funny. This is a deep movie which has great morals such as "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future", and will leave you pondering it for days afterwards and you may perhaps start reading the books! It is simply a dream...all the actors you could ever hope for under one roof! This movie is both magical, and suspensful. I recommend it to those who love fantasy and movies with lots of substance. This really is a journey you won't want to miss!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Oh... the brilliance that is Peter

Author: Elanor Rigby ( from A sad place
6 July 2002

The more and more one thinks of it, the more one reads Tolkien and appreciates it, the more and more brilliant this movie becomes. Unlike Harry Potter, whose scenes were completely stripped from the book and had no imagination of its own (not to mention details that were changed for no good reason), this work not only has a soul of its own, but manages to keep with Tolkien's original work... I love this film! Tis Brilliance!

A word on Casting: perfect. My only qualm is that Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) was a little iffy. Tolkien makes it a very clear that there is no evil in Galadriel or Lothlorien, but the audience never really gets this as we are all wondering if her skin is going to shed violently to reveal a hideous monster in the service of Sauron. Nothing to depreciate the value that is this film though. The emotional range is perfect, the quirkiness of the hobbits is perfect, the cast of characters is perfect... I LOVE YOU PETER! Now it is up to them not to ruin the next two. As Peter has done so well with the first one, however, I don't see how he or his writing team could. 10/10

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A brilliant film

Author: rachi1409 from South Australia, Australia
2 July 2002

I was sceptical going to see this movie, thinking it couldn't possibly live up to expectations. I was also afraid I would be disappointed if it didn't stay true to the amazing novel by J.R.R. Tolkien, which is one of my favourite books. However, I was pleasantly surprised by not only how true it was to the book, but how well done it was. The acting was superb, the costumes and scenery were perfect, (scarily, just how I had imagined them, it was like the film makers read my mind), and the story was extremely well done. Even though it was a long film at around 3 hours, it didn't seem long at all and the script writers managed to keep the main storyline while omitting the "side stories" which are in the novel, and which would only make the film complicated, confusing and far too long. This is one of the best films I have ever seen, and I cannot wait to see the next installment. Unfortunately, it doesn't come out in Australia for another 6 months. But I have a feeling it will be well worth the wait. If you haven't already seen it - do so! You won't be disappointed, especially if you are a fan of the novel.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Richly deserving of its acclaim

Author: G'aal from Monroe, Washington
23 June 2002

Reading through the various posts, I see that the overriding theme amongst the movie's few detractors was that it was "overly long" and "boring", even prompting one poster to rename the movie "Bored of the Rings."

Well, these people clearly haven't read the books and thus are not Tolkien fans. J.R.R. Tokien's books are VERY long and descriptive, and even the hard core fan has to wade through certain elements. However, the books are thrilling, sweeping epics, microcosms of the age-old struggles between good and evil. In this context, Tolkien has created a complete alternate world, populated by humans and similarly-evolved races such as elves, dwarves and hobbits, and mixes courage, determination, love and magic to create "Middle Earth".

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring accomplishes what no film maker dared attempt in the 47 years. It encapsulates the first book of the trilogy in jaw-dropping fashion onto film. And that bears repeating: the movie is so amazing, so awe-inspiring, so wondrous that through much of the movie, I felt my jaw literally dropping open. It's THAT good.

The cast is nearly perfect: Ian McKellan *is* perfect as Gandalf the Grey. The standoff at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum will go down with the alien's tail slowly encircling Lambert in "Alien", the initial emergence of the creature from the black lagoon and other horror/fantasy epic moments as one of the all-time great scenes in cinematic history. Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler, Ian Holm, Cate Blanchett and the rest of the remarkable ensemble cast give the performances of their careers. The special effects, despite some that claim otherwise, leave the viewer on the edge of their seat throughout. And the good news is that since the movie has grossed over $800 million world-wide to date, the second and third installments of the trilogy will benefit with post-production special effects improvements.

If you haven't seen this movie, you've missed out, big time, unless you can find it still playing somewhere. The big screen is far and away the best place to view this masterpiece, especially sitting up close. I saw it three times in the theaters and would see it again today if it were playing nearby. And I know where I'll be the day "The Two Towers" is released: in my local theater, sitting close, watching yet another epic bit of storytelling unfold.

A gigantic 10 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A Beautiful Triumph for Peter Jackson

Author: HersheyAddict314 from Maryland, USA
20 June 2002

The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Rings. The first time I saw those letters appear on a trailer while watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (in May), I thought it was the most ridiculous title for a movie. The trailer was disgusting-I thought the strange-haired little 'people' (later known as hobbits) were ugly and esoteric. Vaguely, I remember whispering to my best friend at the time, 'Ew...who's going to see THAT? What kind of freak would see a movie with such UGLY people??' Little did I know, I would become obsessed with this 'lurid' movie.

About 7 months later, the tickets to 'A Beautiful Mind' were sold out, so I opted to go for LOTR, because nothing else seemed worth my $5.50. The movie astonished me right from the first scene, with the thousands of realistic warriors and beautiful scenery, I was immediately hooked. Throughout the movie, I don't think I blinked once. The characters, the Elvish language, the setting, everything intruiged me. It was artistically and originally beautiful, not at all what I expected. I didn't even notice 3 hours passing by before it ended and I sat dumbstruck in the theater for a while, listening to Enya vocalize 'May It Be.' I walked out of the theater like I walked into a new world.

6 more times I saw the Lord of the Rings. I have two copies of the soundtrack (which is also fabulous) and am counting the days until the Two Towers. For anybody who has not seen this incredible movie, I suggest that you run to the nearest Blockbusters and rent it on August 6th, when it'll be released on DVD and VHS. It's almost essential to life. The actors-Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan and Viggo Mortensen-beautifully and acurately protrayed the characters of J.R.R. Tolkien's historic masterpiece, and Peter Jackson stayed true to the novel. I've read the books and became deeply interested in things I never have before, and have looked at things just a bit differently in this world.

I highly recommend the Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Rings, to anybody at any age anytime. It is my favorite movie, and I'm not surprised that over 60,000 others voted this movie as worthy of #3 on the spot of the top 250 movies of all time.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A Visual (& audio) Feast!

Author: jbirtel ( from United States
3 June 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First...A disclaimer! (and trivia; for those who care) Lord of the Rings is NOT a trilogy, despite popular perception. It ranks as one of the longest single novel that's been written and consists of 6 books:

BOOK I "The First Journey" and BOOK II "The Journey of the Nine Companions" comprise FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. BOOK III "The Treason of Isengard" and BOOK IV "The Journey of the Ringbearers" are THE TWO TOWERS. BOOK V "The War of the Ring" and BOOK VI "The End of the Third Age" concludes THE RETURN OF THE KING.(the titles were part of Tolkien's manuscript but were never used).

That said, the upcoming TWO TOWERS & RETURN...are not sequels and shouldn't be viewed as such. So There !!! Like Peter Jackson, I can't wait till the entire trilo...oops, I mean the entire story can be viewed back to back on DVD at 10 hours plus.

Oh! the movie. It's great! On 1st viewing, there were more things I liked then didn't, but my perception was prejudiced from my own interpretation cemented thru many years (I read it 8 or 9 times over 20 years). But on repeated viewings, I came to appreciate the brilliance behind the maker's decisions on how to tackle the telling that would appeal to readers and non-readers alike (face it! there's no way to please EVERYBODY). Compromises were necessary; so it wasn't to the letter of the book. What was captured faithfully were the set-pieces, the characters (fleshed out beyond expectation) and the spirit of the excitement & thrills. This is what cinema should be.

Those who liked the movie (readers and non) will appreciate a repeat viewing that is near improbable to catch the first time. SUBTLE SPOILER:(that's Gollum's voice screaming "Shire" then "Baggins", seconds later the Nine Riders exit the gates of Barad-dur [the Dark Lord's tower]. Immediately what follows is Gandalf's approach toward Minas Tirith [nice long shot] that will be more prevalent as the city besieged in RETURN OF THE KING. And of course, readers will recognize Tom, Bert and Bill, the trolls from "The Hobbit". This is just a few bits of treasure laced thru-out the movie). (more subtle spoilers) I admired the slight changes made. I never did believe Frodo could've stayed on that horse by himself, in his condition, on his final flight from the Nine Riders (unless the horse sprouted an extra pair of hands to hold him) so Arwen's expanded role seemed totally justified. It also gave the filmaker's an opportunity to expand the role of women as heroes, that was sadly minimized in the trilo...darn-it!...I mean the epic (I almost take that back as the character "Eowyn" will prove in the upcoming sequ... I mean, installments of the story). Also, the Tom Bombadil episode was an amusing trifle...for the novel (I did like it), but I always wondered how anyone could film that section without producing unintentional laughter from the audience. It's ommission is ok by me, as the first part of the movie really belongs to the thrill of the chase and the terror of capture from the Nine.

There are so many nice things said about the performances, the music, the locales, the props (wonderful) that's been said better then I can (most of all...Jackson and the collaborater's vision) so, no sense in repeating it here. It's not totally flawless...but realistically...what is?? As far as it's slight from the American Academy Awards as Best Picture...big deal! (It did win the British Award and American Film Inst. Award) No lack of any award robbed my enjoyment from Citizen Kane, Chinatown, Wizard of Oz (I equally loved the movies that did win_) and the lack of Best Picture won't take any pleasure away from Fellowship.. (please don't interpret that I'm lumping these movies on the same level - I'm just making a point - then again, maybe I am)

For those who didn't enjoy it as much, that's understandable. No movie in history has been unanimous amoung critics, or viewers for that matter. I wasn't sure how much I enjoyed it the first time, but after many repeat viewings, I surrender! 10 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 510: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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