The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 7 of 498: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 4976 reviews in total 

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Great movie with a great cast

10/10
Author: (reesecarter@hotmail.com) from Home
31 July 2002

I really thought all of the actors and actresses brought the book to life. For those of you who have read it, the movie helps to understand the book. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. Its a great movie with a great cast.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

AMAZING!!!!!! a brilliant work of art!!!!

10/10
Author: Courtney (carbon_69@webtv.net) from Pennsylvania, USA
28 July 2002

I just have to say, that The Fellowship of the Ring is one of the best movie's that I have EVER seen!!! Although most of Peter Jackson's films weren't that great, he hit a goldmine with this one. And the cast was perfect. Ian McKellen had the perfect ability to seem both kind and friendly, as well as appear frightening when called for to portray Gandalf. Viggo Mortensen possesses the right amount of mystery and cunning to play Aragorn. Sean Astin has the dimwitted and homely quality to play Frodo's loyal friend Samwise. Elijah Wood, in a surprisingly new role astounded me as Frodo, able to show both his frightened side and his brave side. John Ryhs-Davies portrayed the proud and somewhat snobbish (in the line of elves) Gimli. Orlando Bloom, in an amazing breakthrough performance captured Legolas' quiet and graceful demeanor perfectly. Sean Bean played Boromir's greedy, yet nationalistic character wonderfully. Dominic Monaghan and Bill y Boyd played the dim-witted sidekicks of Frodo, Merry and Pippin, without flaw.

It was a powerful adventure and I can't wait until December.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Stupendous!

10/10
Author: HumanoidOfFlesh from Chyby, Poland
25 February 2002

I've never been a fan of fantasy(not read Tolkien's books),but Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring" totally blew me away!This masterpiece is simply amazing!Everything here is excellent:the acting,the sets,the special effects by Richard Taylor etc.The film was shot in New Zealand for example in Matamata(Hobbiton),Kaitoke Regional Park(Rivendell),Glenorchy(Lothlorien)etc.My favourite characters are:Aragorn(Viggo Mortensen),Frodo Baggins(Elijah Wood),Galadriel(Cate Blanchett)and Boromir(Sean Bean).The film is full of incredibly beautiful images(the Dark Riders galloping on their horses etc.),some scenes like a fight with a huge Troll in Moria are literally unbelievable.I still can't believe that Peter Jackson,who was responsible for such excellent(and extremely gory-I might add!)horror movies like "Bad Taste"(1987)and "Braindead"(1992)created this masterpiece.I only hope he'll return to his splatter origins.10 out of 10-what else?I am waiting impatiently to see the following two parts.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Epic, sweeping film-making at it's very best

10/10
Author: pyrocitor from Ontario, Canada
3 April 2006

The Fellowship of the Ring

When one begins to write one's sentiments regarding a movie such as Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic Lord of the Rings trilogy, the main problem isn't having difficulty finding things to remark upon - the main problem is knowing where to begin. The Fellowship of the Ring essentially redefined the term "quality", in its extraordinary ability to vastly succeed the already unreasonably high expectations of audiences and die-hard fans of the novels everywhere.

It becomes difficult to avoid bias by painting the film with outlandish and likely unreasonable praises, but I must confess I could go on for literally pages pointing out how blown away I still am by virtually every aspect of this movie, the first, and in my opinion, strongest as a film of the trilogy. So I'll try to keep it concise - Jackson has truly brought the novels to life in a fashion one could never have imaged short of actually seeing it for themselves. The sets and appearance of Middle Earth are among the greatest ever created, an impeccable blend of CGI, constructed sets, and the already breathtaking landscapes of beautiful New Zealand. The beautiful cinematography brings this all to light again, in the best sense of the word - seldom does a movie look so, simply put, beautiful. The costumes and appearances of the various creatures and inhabitants of Middle Earth are once again, mind-blowing - some of the best and most convincing computer generated images are on display in these movies. This is all punctuated by Howard Shore's simply gorgeous and incredibly moving Oscar winning score.

Acting is also simply nothing less than astounding, with every cast member not only seeming torn straight out of the pages of the novels, born to play their role, but also turning out pretty much flawless performances around the board. There are standouts of course, especially Sir Ian McKellan's now career defining turn as the warm yet incredibly wise and powerful wizard Gandalf, Viggo Mortenson's wonderful flawed yet noble hero Aragorn, Sean Bean's excellent and truly touching portrayal of the quintessential flawed male character Boromir, Elijah Wood as the good hearted lead character, the innocent hobbit Frodo Baggins, and Sean Aston as his faithful and loyal companion Samwise, and Christopher Lee as the corrupted and now evil wizard Saruman the White. Then there is of course the absurdly underrated Andy Serkis' mind blowing portrayal of the creature Gollum. Though mainly seen in the next two films, Serkis already manages to make a powerful first impression with his 2 minutes or less of screen time.

Again, it seems entirely fair to say the Lord of the Rings movies are among the greatest movies ever made, for their incredibly detailed attention to the details of Tolkien's novels, and their still surprising ability to exceed expectations in every possible way in film-making and storytelling terms. This is epic storytelling at its best - if you are among the very few who have yet to see these movies, strongly consider doing so - it will be well worth your while.

-10/10

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A Masterpiece!

10/10
Author: FiendishDramaturgy from .: Fiendish Writings in the Dark :.
8 September 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wasn't going to review this movie. There are hundreds of reviews on it and I frankly wasn't going to waste my time repeating the same words of praise.

When I first learned that they were doing these movies, I thought, "Great! Another series of movies I'll hate, modeled after a trilogy of books that I love." Stephen King's work, being a prime example. I love the literary works, and the movies all just die on the screen; be it big or little. Then I learned that Peter Jackson was directing it and I was even less eager to see the movies. I never liked the Frighteners and Meet the Feebles?! Wow, did that movie stink UP the place!

And then I discovered they had no plans of making the prequel; "The Hobbit," and that was that. I wasn't going to like the movie, and I refused to be excited about it. Any of it. But then, I was GIVEN tickets as an early Yule present and so I begrudgingly attended its premier here in the Smokies. I was very pleasantly surprised. I ended up seeing this movie twice in the theaters, and have since bought the extended edition gift set of this work.

The opening sequence was so well done, that I couldn't find any reason at all to not accept it. They didn't do "The Hobbit," true enough, but they filled in that time and gave the viewers enough of the beginning that I could thoroughly subscribe to the movie.

Many critics have literally bashed Peter Jackson's omission of one of the characters in Frodo's party, but the character was hardly relevant to the plot, the storyline, or the story itself and was best left out. I didn't even miss old Tom "what'shisname," to tell you the truth.

I do have a problem with Aragorn's character's emotionality in the movie. His character in the book was a seasoned Ranger. His emotional instability; ie: his crying openly scene after scene, is completely out of character. It lends to the storyline with Arwen, and furthers the movie along, true enough, and personally, I didn't mind it. It was just out of character. He's rough, he's tough; a seasoned ranger. He shouldn't have been as emotionally portrayed as Jackson did him, although the reasons are clearly due to time constraints. It would have taken forever to develop Aragorn properly, and they frankly did not have enough time, even with the three-plus hours of screen time.

BUT, Jackson's characters were very well developed, the story was very well told. There was a LOT of dialog, but there was a lot of detail that would've been left out; many, many finer details that never would've been able to be expressed without the richness of dialogue and Jackson and his company saw that, thankfully.

All in all, as a Tolkien fan from WAY back, I feel that Peter Jackson did a marvelous job with this, the opening edition of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It rates so far above, "The Godfather" trilogy (to which it has been compared), that there IS no comparison.

The acting is exemplary. There is no stiffness, no badly delivered lines, no hesitation in performance. Sean Astin truly and greatly surprised me with his brilliant performance as SamWise. The scenery and cinematography is brilliant. The sets and scenes are so well done, I only spied a single flaw...and I was looking! There was a car in the background of one shot! But the car will be missing from the DVD release, I'm sure.

The wardrobing and costumes were finely hand-made; treated to look worn and imperfect, as they should and the Shire was so well done, I was as delighted as any child on Yule morning. But the thing which captured me the most and held me spellbound was the casting. They put just the right people into just the right roles. I simply loved the characters.. Each and every one of them felt just like the book (except for the deviation I already mentioned about Aragorn's emotional state).

First we had "The Godfather," then we were given the "Star Wars" trilogy and now, we have the Lord of the Rings to love. I look forward with great anticipation to the rest of this series.

Thank you, Peter Jackson, for giving of yourself to this extent. It is above and beyond all for which I could have hoped.

This first installment rates a full 10/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

An instant classic.

9/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands
28 June 2003

Beautiful environments with lovely costumes combined with superb characters and and an intense story...the result: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.

Don't let the 3 hour + running time scare you of, like so many long movies it's very well worth seeing. Never has a fantasy world looked so realistic as in Lord of the Rings. All the sets are very detailed and have a realistic feeling as well as the characters and the different races of Middle Earth.

The greatest strength of this movie is not the story itself. The story itself is actually pretty simple, basically it's just about the Ring and the quest to destroy it. No, the greatest strength are the characters, the look of Middle Earth and the action sequences. Rarely has an adventure movie looked so good and has been so tense and enjoyable to watch.

But let's not over praise it, the movie has it flaws and weak spots. There are some unnecessary and boring scene's (especially in the Extended Edition) but for an 3 hour + movie that's maybe just unavoidable. And no matter how awesome everything looks, the special effects aren't always top-class, I'm a firm believer that the movie would have been better if ILM provided the special effects. But let's not judge the movie for what it could have been but let's judge it for what it is. Also, sometimes the Hobbits (Sam, Pippin and Merry) are border line irritating. Another thing that disturbed me was the editing, in my opinion it was extremely bad done in some of the scene's (For instance in the wizards battle between Gandalf and Saruman) but having some editing experience myself I might pay extra attention to this things...

But in this case all those flaws and weak spots are forgiven, for The Fellowship of the Ring truly is a wonderful movie that you simply must have seen at least once in your life.

Already a classic!

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Best adventure film of all-time

10/10
Author: gloryfinder (screenwriter720@yahoo.com) from Michigan
6 August 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Who can deny the power of the rings? Anybody who watches this film with any remote interest will find it to be utterly amazing with a childish flair and heart-felt bondage to the characters. No other film in the history of cinema has been able to capture the intensity of traveling across mountains to marshes. This is Peter Jackson's best film, although he was more than rewarded for the return of the king. I believe that this film is the best of the ring trilogy because it is so simple to understand if one pays attention. I've heard countless people state that this film is boring, but then I retort by saying, "Did you know what was happening?" And they reply with a simple, "they wanted to destroy the ring." This is true to a first grader, but so much more is happening around the film. Ten out of Ten.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

I was not in the target audience

10/10
Author: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark
25 December 2009

I have never read a single word of anything by Tolkien. This is not my genre; I have always disliked fantasy, and largely, adventure, as well. Prior to my viewing of this, I didn't care for Jackson, although The Frighteners had its moments. I put off watching this until tonight, where it was on TV. In other words, I cannot judge this as an adaptation, nor can I comment on the Extended Edition. What I can say is that this gripped me from the first frame and did not let go until the last one. That ought to give you an idea of how well-crafted and brilliantly executed a cinematic achievement it is. The plot is compelling and well-told. In spite of a large group of characters, this keeps track of, and develops, them all quite nicely. The acting is spot-on. I did find the comic relief to be annoying, but there's immensely little of it if you look at the overall running time, that aspect of it wasn't made for me(I can imagine kids enjoy it, and it's harmless and inoffensive), and it's easy enough to look past. This looks gorgeous all the way, and the effects are astonishing. The design of beings, locations and items is all creative and well-done. Cinematography and editing are excellent. This is very exciting, and the action is cool and has the impact it is meant to. The score helps the epic scope, and the foreign, non-human language-use makes the world we are seeing feel more strange and distant. There is nothing really offensive in this, though children might find the battle sequences too intense. I recommend this to everyone who can see themselves getting into this. 10/10

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

The excellent Film adaptation of an excellent novel

10/10
Author: Amy Colton from United Kingdom
28 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

New Zealander Peter Jackson's film adaptation of Tolkien's mythological masterpiece "The Lord of the Rings; The Fellowship of the Ring" (the first part of Tolkien's story) the epic journey and battle between good and evil retold on film. The story of Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) a young hobbit from the Shire, a small place in Western Middle Earth embarks on a dangerous quest to destroy the legendary one ring with the help of a courageous fellowship. The film follows the hobbits journey across middle earth to Rivendell where a council of all the races of middle Earth decide the fate of the one ring; a fellowship is assigned to aid Frodo in his quest to destroy the ring in Mordor. Along this journey they encounter numbers of evil forces sent by Sauron to obtain the ring and rid the world of the goodness. Jackson's daunting task of constructing the screen adaptation of a literacy masterpiece builds an anticipation to fail as some of the audience were aware of Tolkien's depth of creation, having read the book; however Jackson successfully recreated the world of Middle Earth on screen using a variety of techniques. This transition between book and film is often made but rarely is it done with such brilliance, an exceptional success in which Jackson recreated the classic novel. Jackson's film consisted of an enormous cast and crew and was mostly shot on location in New Zealand, took over fifteen months to film in entirety, yet this massive scale film still brought out the fundamental themes of human existence and all the themes Tolkien originally created. Jackson's choice to film the three films out of sequence had no implications to the film. Elijah Wood delivers a knockout performance as Frodo Baggins and really captures the role. The quality of acting is often lost in big blockbusters, however in this film it remains to a very high standard which is a great acclaim considering the large amounts of actors involved.

Jackson opens his film using non simultaneous sound; this powerful lyrical voice over with a black screen beautifully sets the tone of the film and we are brought into the film world immediately. The delayed opening of the film creates suspense to speculate on the opening frame. The powerful prologue that follows demonstrates Jackson's film making to its best, the narrative is set and as we are told the history of the ring we are diverged from reality and are brought into an incredible action sequence combining great cinematography and special effects. The kinetic camera is a great metaphor for the intensity of the battle. Jackson demonstrates the narrative effectively with the battle sequences from the past, cleverly signifying the depth of Saurons power and the power of the one ring. A series of dramatic close ups of the one ring circled by fire, coupled with the signature music which is repeated throughout clearly symbolises the narrative. Jackson also employs techniques of extended fades of entire black to demonstrate the evil in the narrative successfully. The spectacular opening to this film undoubtedly sets the standard for the rest.

Many powerful cinematic techniques are employed throughout the film to add to the creation of a fantasy world. Difficulties arising in scale issues between the hobbits and human characters are successfully overcome using scale doubles and techniques such as forced perspective with a moving camera. Sound is used most effectively and powerfully engages a distinct sense of mood in important parts of the film. This is most noticeable when Frodo puts on the ring and enters the world of the ring wraiths; the diegetic music and sound we could hear is taken out and instead is replaced with a number of eerie sound effects and lighting techniques, this impressively conveys the evil in the narrative.

The Mise en Scene is composed with such a brilliance that it successfully transcends normal concepts of reality and has enabled Peter Jackson to create a totally imaginary convincing world on film. Sets and locations are conceived with incredible care and detail and are loyal to the descriptions of Tolkien. The location choice of New Zealand provides an ideal backdrop to the creation. The remote mountainous locations and woodlands provide the perfect locations to best demonstrate the narrative successfully. Costume and make-up both successfully aid the concept of creating Middle Earth.

One of the greatest sequences in "The Fellowship Of the Ring" is the end battle sequence at Amon Hen. Jackson produces an immense battle scene between the remaining members of the fellowship and the Uruk-Hai. The sequence begins with Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) battling with the Uruk-Hai, the kinetic camera and the increasing speed of the editing intensifies the battle; the music changes and the tempo also quickens this effectively brings the audience into the battle. Brilliantly choreographed fights also aid the creation of a believable scene on film. Sound also plays an important part in this powerful emotional climax of the death of Boromir. We see him receive an arrow to his chest and immediately the sound is removed. This hard hitting absence of the nondiegetic sound and the fade of the diegetic sound greatly contributes to the reality of the battle as we are forced into Boromir's position, a great technique in which Jackson captures this highly significant moment beautifully.

Jackson establishes an incredibly high standard with the "Fellowship of the Ring" for the sequels, combining a detailed Mise en Scene, amazing cinematography, visual effects music and sound to create one of the best film adaptations of a book.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Set pieces...battles...set pieces...battles...

Author: Neil Doyle from U.S.A.
21 September 2002

THE LORD OF THE RINGS has its admirers who are familiar with the plot and the strange characters inhabiting it--and who genuinely love the book and were eager to see their favorite story on the big screen.

In this case, it helps if you are familiar with the plot and the characters because the screenplay is a murky one with none of the characters given enough time for us to understand what they are all about. Instead, we move from set piece to set piece (grand, beautiful sets abetted by dazzling visual effects) and in between each new grand view locale there's another battle of good vs. evil with weapons clashing in every direction and limbs lopped off as fierce battles ensue.

It's a sort of dungeons and dragons world and if this is your thing then this is your dark movie adventure. I saw this on video rather than the big screen so I can assure you it probably all looks a lot grander on the theater screen with the deafening stereo sound effects adding to the vigor of the story. But none of the characters really stand out amid all this swordplay and skullduggery.

Only Ian McKellen and Elijah Wood have substantial enough parts to connect a viewer to the movie. The others are all backgrounders without becoming characters we care about--with the exception, perhaps, of Christopher Lee as Saruman the White, who always makes a convincing villain. Another problem is the sound--voices are dropped so often that much of the stilted dialogue is muted. This is a special drawback because several of the actors have some sort of accent. The worst offender happens to be Ian McKellen who nevertheless gives a very compelling performance behind his grizzly make-up--however, someone should have dubbed some of his lines for greater clarity. The likeable Elijah Wood relies on his specialty--wide-eyed wonder or tense concern for close-ups, but it's rather a one-note performance.

All in all, I was disappointed. With all of the hype (and due to some of the comments expressed here) I expected a much more substantial story than this, especially for a movie with a running time of almost three hours. The drawback on video is that many of the special effects are pretty obvious and the big screen grandeur is lost even when viewed on a large TV screen.

A bit of a letdown in every department. Even the score only occasionally has the right mystical quality between battles. The battles are not quite as brutal as those in GLADIATOR but their intensity is just as great and they turn up with alarming frequency!

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 7 of 498: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [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