The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
5,089 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
First, And Still The Best Of LOTR
ccthemovieman-17 March 2006
Here is one film that lived up to its hype, and by the time I saw it after it had arrived at the video stores, I had heard and read a ton of things about it, and seen all the awards it had received, and expected a lot. To my surprise, it did not disappoint.

Now, several years later after having watched all three of these "Rings" films twice each, I still think this first movie of the trilogy is the best. It is a truly spectacular adventure story all the way through, probably the best ever put to film...and the first three hours of it is extra special. The following two films were very good, to be sure, but this first had a better mixture of the story. The second and third movies were almost entirely Frodo and his allies' long journey, but the first half of this movie also gives a good bit of interesting introductory material including a number of scenes at the Shire, before the long adventure starts. If you watch all three of these films consecutively the action wears you down by midway through the final episode and it almost becomes just too much That never gets a chance to happen with the "Fellowship" film.

Anyway, "Fellowship," stunned me for the visuals alone. I can't recall any film that has so many jaw-dropping scenes, one after the other, for three straight hours. Some are beyond description, and I don't care if they are computer- generated. So what? The fact is they are awesome to view, both in beauty and in staggering action scenes that feature incredible-looking monsters and other mythical characters.

The story covers all kinds of terrain, too, from the lush Shire of the Hobbits, to the harsh neighboring landscapes. Each couple of minutes, as in the two movies that followed, scenes radically change from calmness to action, adventure to romance, sweet lovable characters to hideous monsters, on and on and on. It's an incredible movie experience.
185 out of 209 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Fellowship of the Ring: Not just a Movie, but the Door to another Dimension
bonnie9114 April 2006
The first part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Fellowship of the Rings opened the door to a whole new world for me. I'd never read any of Tolkien's books when I saw the film for the first time at the theatre and, now that I've read them, in retrospect I think being a neophyte to the mythology made my LOTR movie experience all the more miraculous.

I loved The Two Towers and Return of the King almost as much as FOTR, but not quite, because seeing Fellowship for the first time was like taking a journey to a fabulous new place and meeting incredible new friends that you don't want to leave. I've never felt anything quite like what this epic evoked in me. It was akin to being a child again, with that tireless sense of wonder and enjoyment of each and every moment, maybe because as a child you are discovering your surroundings, and whatever age you are, when you watch the Fellowship of the Ring you are rendered in awe upon being introduced to the purity and beauty of Middle Earth and darkly enthralled by the majesty of Eisengard, Saruman, Sauron and all of their mighty malice. One of the things that makes this movie so special (and there are so many!) is that you fall in love not only with the "good" characters, but also with the "evil" ones. For example, Christopher Lee was amazing as Saruman, and I can't imagine the movie without him.

Some films that might be comparable to the Lord of the Rings trilogy are: The Fifth Element, the Star Wars Trilogy parts IV, V and VI (forget the newer prequels), the Matrix trilogy (especially the first part), Interview with a Vampire, the Legend of Sleepy Hollow (with Johnny Depp), Logan's Run and The Island. They are all excellent movies and works of art that weave that movie magic that keeps you spellbound and entranced for the duration of their runtime.

But after seeing The Fellowship of the Ring, I knew I had found the movie by which I would judge all other movies. Based on J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved books, Peter Jackson has set a new standard in the industry of cinema, one that I honestly think has not and won't be surpassed, at least not in my lifetime, not even by PJ himself.

It is truly an instant classic that will stand the test of time and be loved by generations to come. God Bless Tolkien and Jackson and everyone involved in the conception and making of this film, for creating a world that is at my fingertips, only takes the touch of a button to go to whenever I want, and makes me forget everything else.

The LOTR Trilogy is undoubtedly MY precious, the non plus ultra of all movies!
167 out of 183 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great
MR-ODIN15 February 2020
It is my firm belief that the standard versions of The Lord of the Rings should be jettisoned in favour of the extended editions universally. Sure, the near 4 hour runtime is a tad steep, but for an absolute masterpiece like this, it's work every second and the first act of undoubtedly the best trilogy in cinematic history!
77 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An absolutely incredible film!
NRGWasp2 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!
326 out of 343 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow!
minionlost11 December 2001
Breathtaking. Unique. Captivating. Enchanting.

Within minutes of the start of this first chapter of an undeniably epic trilogy, the audience was left gasping at the intensity of the images on the screen. And we had nearly three hours to go.

The scope of Tolkien's masterpiece may have eluded film-makers for decades, but director Peter Jackson makes good on his promise: he has not only brought us the tale of Frodo and his bold companions, he has brought us Middle Earth. And believe me, it is BIG. Sweeping vistas and hang-onto-your-seat camera shots send us zooming through the towering cities and citadels of Tolkien's imagination.

But even more impressive than the stunning visuals and sound-effects-like-you've-never-heard-before are the actors who breathe life into the characters. Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf is nothing short of awe-inspiring, and Elijah Wood's Frodo is one of the most unexpectedly captivating performances I've seen in a long time. The despair, terror, and determination of the Fellowship is all there, in spades. I left the theater aching...from tensing every muscle during the fight and flight sequences--the breathless and compelling kind we haven't seen since Spielberg gave us a desperate charge onto the D-Day beaches of Normandy.

Those unfamiliar with Tolkien's world may quickly find themselves lost in it, but happily so. The depth of his creation cannot be grasped in a few hours, and it doesn't need to be; the struggle of good against evil explodes on the screen, and leaves little room for complaint.

The movie ended with a stunned audience sitting on the edges of their seats, feeling somewhat bereft. We were exhausted, but no one wanted to wait a year for more.

Jackson's ambitious first chapter is truly unlike anything you've seen this year. George Lucas and Chris Columbus take note: this is how you deliver on a cinematic promise.

For everyone else: don't you dare miss it.
348 out of 389 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Part One: With Help, Even the Impossible Can Be Achieved
mstomaso30 November 2007
Peter Jackson set out to make movies which the author of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, J.R.R. Tolkien would have endorsed. All three were resounding successes, though because of the film medium they necessarily varied from Tolkien's story-line. Purists may have issues with Jackson's theatrical license, but as someone who has read Tolkien's books several times and seen the films 4-5 times each, I never felt that Jackson went too far or compromised Tolkien's story, the mythology he developed or the wonderful characters he brought to life. Many have said what Jackson did could not be done. He has not only proved the nay-sayers wrong, but lovingly crafted a set of films which will, for many decades to come, stand out as a great achievement.

This is the first of three reviews I am publishing on IMDb for these films. I am labeling them Parts 1, 2, and 3 just in case anybody wants to read them in order. The reviews will be self-contained, but will also be enhanced by a chronological reading. My reviews will focus on the extended edition DVDs, though my comments are also relevant to the theatrical releases.

The Fellowship of the Ring introduces the key characters and the broad story arc of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Wizard Gandalf the Grey travels to a small town for small people (Hobbits)to help celebrate Bilbo Baggins' birthday. The very elderly Baggins doesn't look a day over 45, and soon it becomes apparent why. Since the great adventure of his life, a quest he was sent on by Gandalf himself, he has possessed the most powerful object in all of Middle Earth – The One Ring.

This ring is evil incarnate, with an insatiable lust for power, it taints every creature who possesses it and tries to work its way back to its creator – Dark Lord Sauron. Bilbo uses the ring to disappear, as he intends to spend his senescence with his friends the Elves in Rivendell. But activating the ring, he draws the attention of Lord Sauron from thousands of miles away in the land of Mordor. Realizing what has occurred, Gandalf scrambles to determine a course of action and recruits Bilbo's nephew Frodo and his loyal gardener Samwise to bear the ring to the Council of Elrond in Rivendell. Thusly, the seeds of the fellowship are planted in the soil of the Shire.

At this point, we are about 1/6th of the way through The Fellowship. Fairly soon thereafter, it becomes clear who will compose the fellowship, and who and what these people are. Though the succeeding films are not entitled "Fellowship", they follow the adventures of the surviving central characters. Characterization is done just as Tolkien did it in the original novel – by example not discourse.

For example, we are given hints to the identity of Strider (Mortenson) earlier on in the movie than in the novel, but the actual significance of this remains ambiguous until about midway through. Strong characterization is key to the success of the entire trilogy. To summarize, Peter Jackson, his team and cast – NAIL the characterization.

The casting and acting is perfect. It is very difficult to resist the temptation to single out Mortenson and McKellen for carrying their difficult roles so well (Strider/Aragorn and Gandalf), but why risk diminishing the contributions of the rest of the cast? Nobody mis-steps, and it is clear from the beginning that the entire cast was thoroughly and completed engaged with the task before them.

Tolkien believed that no film would ever do his work justice, and until this trilogy, he was correct.Peter Jackson and his team have managed to do exactly what they set out to. As Jackson himself has said in reference to the film trilogy, they set out to 'make Tolkien's film.' Jackson successfully drew out elements of all three books, expanding and contracting, rearranging, and sometimes adding whole subplots which are hinted at in the books, but not well explained, in order to adopt the grand story to the film medium. Arwen (Liv Tyler), daughter of Elrond and Elven lover of Aragorn, for example, is introduced early in the films and plays a role in the films which is much more equal to her significance than it was in the books.

The Howard Shore score is lovely, and its simple themes are used to great effect throughout all three movies. The musical collaborations improvising on Shore's basic themes are great, and, though they feature some prominent performers – are never weighed down by star-power.

Jackson made all three movies simultaneously. This technique allowed for perfect continuity, and permitted much greater flexibility in editing and post-production work than would normally be allowed. Knowing that he would need to establish and support his own fellowship to make this production work, he also knew that success would make the production legendary. So, he documented the creation of the films beautifully. Two complete DVDs full of documentary pieces are included in all three Special Edition Packages in the trilogy. Many are likely to be bored by the details in these documentaries, but those interested in the creative process behind the films will be provided with a more comprehensive view than I can remember ever seeing in any similar DVD package.

The Fellowship of the Rings is as true a representation of Tolkien's novel as can be imagined. Although some aspects of the stories in the novel were adapted to the screen, the essentials, the characters, and the overall story are not just recognizable, but ENHANCED by the film. What results is a film that is not just entertaining, but an enormous fulfillment of an undying wish of millions of fans around the world.

Very highly recommended.
49 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Embrace the magic
Rinaear8 October 2002
It is with no surprise that Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring film has received such mixed critics. Many viewers refer to it as being childish, boring and uninteresting. Seems to me that it is bound to the same fate of Tolkien's books, destined to be a target for the same type of misunderstandings that keep attacking this literary masterpiece many decades after it's first publication.

Having read the books several years ago, I went to see this `impossible' film when it came out with many doubts on my mind. I really liked it, but left the theater with as many doubts as I had before. Was it perfect? Well, maybe not, but what an achievement. After watching it a few times on DVD, and thinking about it for some time now, I find myself loving this film more and more. Let me tell you why...

The Lord of the Rings is a fairy-tale of myth and fantasy. Peter Jackson directed a film that was considered, for a very long time, impossible to make, and not only for technical reasons. The narrative roots are incredibly long and detailed, and the storyline is deeply connected with the creation of a fantastic continent from a time unknown called `Middle Earth'. It's author, Tolkien, dedicated a considerable part of his life developing this continent's background, it's mythology and origins, it's different kinds of people, cultures and languages, and therefore it's geographic references are determinant to the unfolding of the story of the One Ring.

Peter Jackson went out to achieve the impossible and came out with a recreation of the original that is pure and true to the story in every detail. The first time the four hobbits meet a black rider on the road, for example, is absolutely faithful to the feeling of the book. The assault of the riders at Weathertop is another great example, and it captures that feeling of danger, density and atmosphere that are the main characteristics of the tale. Jackson also took some liberties with the story, and made some right choices along the way. If the so called `purists' may not approve the removal of Tom Bombadil altogether, it should be comprehensible that the travel from Hobbiton to Rivendel is a very long and detailed one and could easily make a movie on it's own. I felt more uneasy with how short the Council of Elrond was. In the book, the council is where the whole story of the rings is first explained, and many passages from the past ages of Middle Earth are unveiled. It is a fascinating moment of the story, that had to be shortened for obvious reasons. Still, after some consideration, I now agree with the options made by Peter Jackson, and think that the movie prologue narrated by Galadriel was the wisest choice. The magic is all there when Gandalf shuts his eyes the moment Frodo stands in the council and says `I will take the ring'. It is there at Moria's Gate, and at the fall of Boromir. It is a powerful film that doesn't fit the rhythm of the standard Hollywood action movie. It is a film that breeds, that takes time to unfold, it's tale branching in every direction.

I could go on and on, talking about all the different elements that bring this film close to perfection, but I'll end saying that deep down, this is not about action, beards and big monsters. The greatest thing about this film, to me, is that it brought me back to a time when I was in love with a different world where everything was possible. Reading The Lord of the Rings night after night, I came to understand what this thing of `mankind' really was all about. The corruption of absolute power, the importance and value of friendship, the inevitability of growing up, the strength of hope... That this film could capture that magic, and be a new bearer to it's message of humanism, is a statement to it's greatness. Gandalf's words, that even the smallest person may change the course of the world, and have a part to play in the destiny of all, are immortal.

In the end, this is a wonderful film, but that doesn't mean you are going to like it. I cannot tell you what it is like to see this film if you don't know or love the book. But I hope it may plant a seed on your heart to discover a great world of fantasy, beauty and humanity. I believe Tolkien would have liked that.
490 out of 569 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
How the hell did they film this thing
mosquitobite7 March 2021
An incredible feat Enthrals anew every time Cannot believe its two decades ago Love it so much
15 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Thank you Mr Jackson
adamscastlevania211 November 2014
(95%) If the late 70's early 80's had the Star wars trilogy, then the 2000's had this epic fantasy masterclass. Regardless of whether you're a fantasy fan or not this is too good a movie to simply pass up, and it will be one of those movies that given time will prove it to be a classic. The deeper you look into this the more one notices that every single aspect really is a truly impressive accomplishment. The fact that every single sword used by the main characters was made by hand, with extra ones made only for carrying, fighting, etc, then there's the costumes/armor/props all made by teams of many people. They even made artificial trees for gods sake. But really all those things are just extras, what really makes this a unique watch is that it really does feel huge and sweeping, the sense of scale is fantastic and I can't think of anything that even comes close to matching it. What every epic flick needs this has, the cast is great, it's exciting, it has bags of character, it's funny, sad, superbly well made, with a great score and plenty of action. It's also one of very few 2 hour 30 minute + movies ever that leaves the audience wanting more. Since watching it around Christmas 2001 at a packed out cinema, and the many times I've seen it on DVD since, it never fails to impress and charm. All in all near perfect cinematic treat that keeps on giving.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tolkien's Brilliant Vision Realized Into A Perfect Film
jaesboxer26 June 2002
For the thousands of fans who thought it couldn't be done, to the skeptics and the critics who observed Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Lord Of The Rings into a trilogy would be the next Ishtar, a disaster of epic proportions, allay your fears. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring is the most daring cinematic event to take place in years, and despite the fact it undeservedly lost the best picture oscar to A Beautiful Mind, it is, I strongly believe, a film for the ages. NOt since Gone With THe Wind has an epic tale, critically acclaimed, been adapted into a film which is astounding in its own right. The sets are marvelous, the characters portrayed to perfection (Most notably Ian McKellen as Gandalf), and the mythology of Middle-Earth brought to vivid life, combining to make a film that is both spectacular in its grandeur and engaging in its characters. This is a film I believe equal to Lawrence Of Arabia in its scope, and I am anxiously awaiting the sequel THe Two Towers being released this Christmas.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent
preppy-33 January 2002
Incredible adaptation of the first book of J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I'm not going to summarize the story--there's way to much going on. All I'll say is they took a verry difficult book with a intricate plot and made it an exciting, totally accesible movie. The film moves quickly (with a few slow spots--but that's to get in the plot) and there's a lot to take in, but I was never confused. I should mention that I tried twice to read the books but found them too hard.

The film looks magical--Middle Earth looks beautifully real. All the special effects are great (the Ring Wraiths are downright terrifying--as they should be) and the action sequences are among the best I've ever seen--fast, long and breathtaking. The film is long (2 hrs, 40 min) but the time flies by. The only problem is that there's so much plot and action going on that you're exhausted by the end--but in a good way.

With the exception of Viggo Mortensen (very wooden) all the actors are good--top honors go to Elijah Wood, Dominic Monaghan, Cate Blanchett, Liv Tyler and (especially) Ian McKellan.

But the film is VERY violent (despite the PG-13 rating). It deserves an R--this is NOT one for the kids. Still, it's the best film of 2001. SEE IT!!!!
32 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
From the beginning...
dee.reid3 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.

10/10
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Masterpiece
Theo Robertson16 August 2002
I've never been a fan of the sword and sorcery genre . I'm surprised film companies decide to make rubbish like THE BEASTMASTER, HAWK THE SLAYER and RED SONJA but I am aware of the popularity of JRR Tolkien's massive novel LORD OF THE RINGS and of it's popularity , I remember in a survey carried out by a very well known British fantasy/SF magazine in 1987 Tolkien's book was voted the greatest fantasy novel of all time ( THE STAND by Stephen King was a long way second ) , but it's a novel that has always struck me as being read by anoraks who - like fans of STAR TREK and STAR WARS - insist on reading subtexts that are just not there . When the THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS shot to number one in the IMDb top 250 films I put the popularity down to obsessed anorakish fans who were going to vote the film a classic no matter what . Stranger still I found groups as diverse as neo Nazis to gays to enviromentalists proclaiming " This is our film " so when I finally sat down to watch TFOTR I was expecting only some average entertainment for a non sad person with no political axe to grind . After seeing the film I had to admit THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is a masterpiece .

Much of the credit must go to the producers . I 've no idea of the politics about bringing the story to the silver screen but I can imagine the Hollywood bigwigs sitting around the commitee table saying " Give us Tom , give us Nicole , get Harrison , get Leonardo . No limeys . Limeys are slimy . No limey accents . We're Americans , this is our baby " to which the producers gave a firm and resounding " No " . Good for them because the Hollywood treatment would have ruined this film. The cast comprised of well known - but not megastar - actors and unknowns are uniformally excellent even the normally hammy Lee and Rhys Davis and the bland Tyler are good . Also great to see so many Brits playing good guys and having the American actors adopting non specific British accents .The cast do a good job

The other production values are outstanding . Pride of place goes to Andrew Lesnie's cinematography where the camera sweeps down from the sky into the Orcs underground lair and the camera also shows off the stunning New Zealand landscapes . I'd always believed Scotland had the greatest scenery on Earth but I'm willing to change my mind . The FX are good throughout though perhaps the matte backgrounds and CGI are less impressive in places but they're still a lot better than we've been used to recently . The Orc make up is wonderful and helps them become classic cinema monsters . The only bad point about the Orcs is - Like the stormtroopers in STAR WARS - they're too easy to kill .

There are some minor flaws to THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS but this is probably down to Tolkien's source novel rather than the film makers . A couple of times the heroes seem set to suffer a resounding defeat when something not obvious at first like flammable villains or a giant eagle saves the day . I guess this is cancelled out by the dangers and adversaries also appearing from nowhere and there's little female perspective in the story for the women in the audience to relate to but come on girls you've got Viggo Mortensen and Sean Bean acting all hunky and macho so you can't complain.

I see the IMDb reviewers have started a backlash against FOTR like they did with TITANIC and GLADIATOR . They're right about the gawd awful rubbish that is TITANIC but they're wrong about GLADIATOR which is a very good film and even further wrong about THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING which is a cinematic masterpiece. Ignore their criticisms . Any film that is praised by people as diverse as fans of the book , people who have never read the book , enviromentalists and cynics like myself is worth your time watching . I'm really looking forward to THE TWO TOWERS
72 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A truly exceptional film
Mr_PCM28 February 2006
There is very little that can be said about The Lord of the Rings that hasn't been said already many times over. But what can be re-iterated is that The Fellowship of the Ring is an outstanding piece of film-making.

Where do you start when reviewing a film the size of Lord of the Rings? J.R.R. Tolkein's seminal masterwork, long considered unfilmable, has made it on to the screen thanks to visionary director Peter Jackson. The Fellowship of the Ring is the first of the three books of the trilogy. Everyone has their favourite of the three, and this one is probably mine. Unrivalled in its size and scale by virtually any other film, with new groundbreaking special and digital effects, a stunning musical score, universally superb acting and most importantly a superb story.

The Fellowship of the Ring is the first part of the epic trilogy that tells of the quest of a hobbit to destroy an evil ring of power. He is aided in his quest by his friends and other companions who accompany him and protect him on his journey. Many threats face him on his long journey, both from the world around him and from his companions, who could be tempted by the power of the ring he has set out to destroy. It is a tale of magic and fantasy, swords and sorcery, but it is not simply for teens who enjoy dungeons and dragons games. It is accessible to everyone. By turns exciting, frightening, funny and sad, it is a true masterpiece in terms of storytelling, encompassing the full spectrum of emotions.

The acting is superb from the entire cast, and it is unfathomable as to how the Academy overlooked the acting entirely for all three films when dishing out awards and nominations. However the performances from Ian McKellan, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Elijah Wood and Sean Bean are all so good it would have possibly been greatly unfair to single any one out for an award.

The film also contains some groundbreaking computer-generated special effects, and some positively genius scale work. Due to hobbits being only about 3 feet tall, some clever scale work was needed in order to ensure that John Rhys-Davies, a dwarf in the film but over 6 feet tall in real life, did in fact look the height of a dwarf. This was done through clever use of forced perspectives, scale doubles, giant sets and blue screen filming. However, the most impressive use of computer effects lies later in the trilogy, with the appearance of Gollum – cinema's first live-action character who is completely computer generated. The music is also beautiful, and Howard Shore has created possibly the most iconic and memorable score since John Williams' Star Wars.

Peter Jackson has, until Lord of the Rings, been seen as a director outside of the mainstream, but his superb, career-defining work on the Lord of the Rings trilogy has seen him well and truly propelled him to the forefront of Hollywood. He has re-defined the epic film with unparalleled success, and created films that will definitely stand the test of time, to one day be thought of with the same reverence as the Star Wars and Godfather trilogies.

A major milestone in cinema history, the trilogy would eventually gain seventeen Oscars between the three films. Lord of the Rings is a master class in storytelling, and essential viewing.
30 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Details!
BoordAppel25 July 2002
I think I can watch this film a billion times and not get bored. Today I saw LOTR for the third time and I noticed a few details.

  • When Frodo is stabbed with the blade from the dark rider and the hobbits and Aragorn are in the forrest u can see 3 huge stone trolls in the background. To understand who they are you have to read The hobbit. - When the fellowship is traveling over the mountains everyone is walking IN the snow, except for Legolas who is walking ON the snow. The is because Elves are so light.


Well when I saw these details I realised that Peter Jackson was even a greater director then I thought. And for the people who think that there are too much 'ring-shots' (sounds like a word from a porn movie) in the movie: THE MOVIE IS CALLED THE LORD OF THE RINGS GODDAMMIT, THE RING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE! Some say that the movie is too long. It may be long but I never ever get bored watching. This movie is just brilliant, mayB just as brilliant as the book.
97 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I Don't Know if They Could Do It Much Better
Hitchcoc2 March 2006
I am not fanatic, though I have read the books a couple of times. My interest in J. R. R. Tolkien goes to his knowledge of the history of language as well as his work in fantasy. I've seen some of the bad animation that was done using his work. I always assumed that this would be the only vehicle that could be used to bring these works to the screen. Now with a new generation of special effects masters, we have a work of art like the world has never seen. Granted, there can never be a definitive work that matches the depth and poetry of the books, but this captures the charm, the wonder, the amazing epic. To see the Shire presented in the first scenes and the party in the home of Bilbo as the creatures of this amazing fantasy are exposed is one of those incredible moments. The story is set up for the ultimate adventure as Frodo paddles out onto that lake, not knowing what has been set in motion. I will leave the real reviews to others. My first thought upon seeing this was, I just hope I survive to see it to its conclusion.
27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Don't care what the Academy says, Best film of 2001 and best of many others.
TheLastStop4127 March 2002
LOTR is without a doubt, the best movie I've ever seen. I don't care what the Academy says because without a doubt, it was the best film of 2001 (obviously... i said it was the best movie I've ever seen). It deserved the Academy Award 10 times more than A Beautiful Mind did. I mean look at the difference between ratings. LOTR: #3 ABM: #126 See a difference? LOTR will go on to be an unforgotten movie as what Star Wars is. In twenty years ABM won't even be on the top 250 list, while LOTR will still be in the top 50. SO LOTR fans just remember. Academy doesn't mean sh*t. Time says it all.
31 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Never read the book, but loved the movie!
Aaron13757 January 2002
I didn't know quite what to expect when I went into the theater, all I knew is that I wanted to see a fantasy film with sword fights, magic and monsters. I was not disappointed. It exceeded my expectations because it had all the stuff I mentioned and great acting, and good character development as well. I was enjoying the movie so much that I was very disappointed when it ended. I would have gladly stayed another six hours if the showed the next two installments of this flick. That was the only bad part of the film is the abrupt ending, but I still give this movie a 10, because it is a trilogy and I was expecting it. If you want to see a great movie, one that delivers where so many have promised, but failed to deliever then this is the film to see...even if you didn't read the book. And for anyone who has read the book I would love to hear your take on the movie, just don't give anything away about the next two parts.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Middle Earth comes alive...in breathtaking detail.
Scarlet1317 February 2002
When I first saw the trailers for "The Fellowship of the Ring," I had never had any interest in reading the lengthy tome of a trilogy. But seeing the possibility of the movie, I immediately went out and read the whole thing, insisted on receiving it for Christmas, and enjoyed every minute of it. The feelings I had while reading the series were heightened seeing it come to life in the stunning movie. I thought it was a fabulous work of art.

I thought that having Galadriel tell what was basically the prologue of the book was a good idea, as it helped those who had never read the story. It also immediately involved me in the film; I felt I had an insider's advantage on the rest of the audience. Cate Blanchett has a wonderfully deep and emotional voice; the way she speaks Galadriel is almost as effective as her appearence as the Elven queen. Also, showing the last battle of Isildur and Sauron helped unfog a part of the novel that had me a trifle confused.

The entire movie is full of beautiful sets and landscapes. The Shire was almost exactly as I'd pictured it. Hobbiton is cute and very whimsical. Mordor was frighteningly well done, extremely real. Rivendell had a little bit of a European-tourist-trap look, but was beautiful all the same. The entire backdrop of the movie (the mountains, Moria, Isengard) was perfect; it's amazing that "Fellowship" was filmed in one country.

Now to the characters. All I can say is, "Wow." I was a little apprehensive about the casting at first; I'd created such real images of the characters in my imagination, I almost didn't want them spoiled for me. However, I was not disapointed in the least. Elijah Wood, though not one of my favorite actors, was believable. You could tell from the first glimpse that Frodo was special; Wood's pale, sharp features contrast sharply with the more ruddy, robust look of the rest of the hobbits. He also cries like a little girl. But his weaknesses and strengths make his Frodo an apt choice for the starring character. The rest of the Hobbiton gang was well-chosen, too. Sean Astin ("Rudy" forever to me) was loyal and a bit bumbling, just like the Gamgee of Tolkien's telling. Pippin and Merry were congenial, slow-witted lads, but very brave nonetheless. Viggo Mortensen is outstanding. He has the ability to make Aragorn both menacing and kind. He physically represents Strider to the nines with his strength and virility; the action sequences of his are very passionate and exciting. Some may have complained about Arwen's character being slightly expanded; I thought it a good change. In the books, you have to read the whole trilogy and then rifle through the appendix in "The Return of the King" to learn the history between Aragorn and Arwen. Liv Tyler is ethereal and breathtaking, but at the same time displays the courage and magic that make the Elves the beings they are. Speaking of Elves, I can't help but gush over the handsome and ever-so-talented Orlando Bloom as noble Legolas. Bloom captured the archer's very movements; he treads lightly and fights fearlessly. Legolas's bowmanship was amazing; he looked so natural loosing his arrows machine-gun style. He was my favorite character in the books, and his essence transcends the film. Gimli was pompous and brave, as well. He is well-represented in the movie. Boromir was hopelessly lost, but at the same time valiant and strong. Sean Bean gave an emotionally-charged performance as the tortured warrior. Hugo Weaving was very good as Elrond. He was noble and cold at the same time. And Gandalf. What more can be said of Ian McKellan's showcase portrayal of the wizard? He was magnificent. He could be Gandalf, the kind old conjurer who set off pyrotechnics for hobbit-children. Then he could turn around and stun the life out of you with Gandalf the powerful wizard, facing the balrog with defiance and an iron will. His Oscar nomination is well-deserved.

Peter Jackson is a brave soul to take on a project that could have backfired in so many places. Instead of bringing us uninspired kitsch, he serves up raw emotion, graphic battles of good and evil, chilling and wonderful characters, and enough special effects (realistic, mind you) to make John Cameron's mouth water. Knowing that "The Two Towers" was my favorite of the books, I eagerly anticipate the second helping of "The Lord of the Rings."
321 out of 384 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Three Rings for the Elven Kings, Under The Sky........
Bob_Tanaka8 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!!!!
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An amazing beginning of the trilogy. An amazing end of the movie.
EVON1TY14 June 2019
⭐⭐⭐Screenplay: 99/100

⭐⭐⭐Acting Performance: 97/100

⭐⭐⭐Film Editing: 98/100

⭐⭐⭐Cinematography: 99/100

⭐⭐⭐Visual Effects: 97/100

⭐⭐⭐Sound Effects: 100/100

⭐⭐⭐Art Direction & Set Decoration: 100/100

⭐⭐⭐Original Scores: 99/100

⭐⭐⭐Makeup: 98/100

⭐⭐⭐Costume Design: 97/100

_________________________________

"For the time will soon come when Hobbits will shape the fortunes of all."
  • Galadriel


Galadriel tells Hobbits may look like unimportant people but they will change the course of the future. Story begins with this line.

This line is not really the first line but the line stars the movie for real. This movie is breathtaking. Whatever I say is not enough for this trilogy. Brilliant novel, brilliant adapted screenplay.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Never before in my life were my cheeks more aching...
Nachtritter30 January 2002
...but oh was I thankful for it!!! All through the movie I kept on having this big large smile sculpted into my face. For the record, I'm 25 years old, and I've read "The Lord of the Rings" in three times for the first time when I was six or seven years old. Ever since then, I read it at least once or twice a year - therefore you can count me as a fan, for I follow the same cult fan procedure with "The Hobbit" and "The Silmarillion" as well. Now onto the movie... Gosh, I saw it more than one time, and I keep wanting more of it. It just never gets boring! I really enjoyed the little stuff that is found throughout the movie for fans of the books (the map on Bilbo's table in his house comes to mind, it is exactly as the one in "The Hobbit" book that I own), and I also incredibly enjoyed the intro sequence with the re-telling of the battle against Sauron from the Silmarillion, never has an ultimate evil being been so well depicted on the screen. It truly is Sauron.

Those who argue the movie cuts too many parts or that it changes the story too much are totally wrong. This movie could not have shown the whole first time in its entirety - keep in mind that the audiobook version of 'Fellowship of the Ring' lasts well over ten hours, making a movie this long would, well, make it way too long and besides, how would you financially sustain such a project? I've read a reviewer saying he'd make all three books with the time allowed for the first movie alone. I think it would be a very fast-forwarding experience of a movie with 'Alvin and the Chimpmunks' kind of voices, incredibly stupid to say the least.

Ok, so there are changes in the movie - well, this is Jackson's vision of it. All of us have our own visions of the books, which may or may not be compatible with that of Jackson's, but I can safely assume that nobody can say they have a hundred percent the same vision of the story as Tolkien; that's the thing with books: each reader has a different vision of it. As for me, I was blown away. Never before have I felt so much at home in a movie, it is as if I had taken a walk in the town where I grew up, the Shire, Rivendell, Moria, Lorien, everything felt so much like home, I was moved. I cannot tell of another movie that had me shed tears just by seeing a landscape on screen.

As for the changes, well, I found good reasons behind all of them, and let me tell you right away, I was happy that Arwen saved Frodo, yes, maybe coming from a fan it will look like absolute heresy, but I enjoyed the scene a lot. I did not enjoy it because it was supposedly politically-correct to do so, or that I find Liv Tyler to be absolutely attractive; it was just because I felt like even though it was a big change from the book, it was a very good one indeed, it makes you discover the power, determination, and courage of elves and the fact that even elven women, although great in their beauty and seemingly fragile in appearance do not have anything to envy to their male counterparts. And beside, as Arwen is to become a Queen later on, it was pretty good to see her have a great first appearance.

The actors were great, they were a lot into their characters, and for the first time, I saw elves as they were, quick, agile, terrifyingly effective in battle - just look at how Legolas dealed with the hordes of enemies without a single hint of fear in his eyes - these are elves as they should be. Gimli was great too, I know people seem to think many characters were not developed enough, but by the actions you can learn a lot. With Gimli a lot can be learned about the dwarves, their pride, deep sense of honor and family, their mistrust of elves, their love for strong beer and a good fight against anything bigger, and their sheer hatred for orcs and the likes. Aragorn was totally the ranger character, the ending scene as he walked toward the horde of Uruk-Hai warriors was great, his attitude, his clothes, everything about him just cried "ranger". Boromir was very well depicted, desperate to save the people of Gondor, by any mean necessary, robbed of all hope, yet in the end he redeems himself by showing his true valour, deep down, he's willing to die to defeat evil, and when he recognizes his king in Aragorn, on his last breath, I felt like watching a hero die, it was moving. The hobbits were all great, Frodo is deeply sad and fatalist, and Sam is just the 'best friend' everyone would like to have, just as it should be. Finally, we have Gandalf, quite frankly, he looks mighty, Ian IS Gandalf. The faceoff against the Balrog in the Moria is a memorable sequence, and just shows how strong he really is, to be able to vanquish such a foe. I can't wait for his return.

Quite frankly, I can't wait for the two other movies... In the meantime, I'll watch this one over and over again. This movie has everything that a good movie needs to have, and more. Plus, it just might bring more people to actually read books that have more pages than the average little 25¢ novel that has no value in it, which is great. Parents, maybe some scenes will frighten your kids, but this movie has almost NO blood (even though it has a good share of battle) and the foes are undeniably evil, plus it has good values in it - friendship, courage, responsiblity, sacrifice for a good cause, and the belief that anyone can help to change things. This is worthy of Tolkien, this is a movie that will go down in history as being one of the best ever, for sure.
666 out of 776 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Greatest `Fantasy' Book become greatest `Fantasy' film
Yrneh22 December 2001
I think it is important to remember that Peter Jackson took up this film not in order just to make a film of `The Lord of the Rings' but because he wanted to make a 'fantasy just like the `The Lord of the Rings'" as he himself put it. After repeating that phrase on a number of occasions the question popped into his mind: "Well, why not the `The Lord of the Rings' itself?". In doing this he, of course, set himself an enormous challenge: he had to make a really good `fantasy' film, one which would stand on its own and be true to what he had originally wanted to do but he would also, and here the task he had set himself was enormous, be true to the original book and to make a film which the legions of people who have loved this book would feel happy with. In the latter task he was certainly not helped by the author or the book: Tolkein, it would seem, hated cinema. The book itself is `HUGE': this was not going to be the kind of task that the James Ivory team set themselves, or Scorsese nor the kind of task facing Branagh with Hamlet; nor was it going to be like the puny task that faced Columbus with `Harry Potter' who had the bigger budget ($130 million for one film as compared with Peter Jackson with $300m for three).

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

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

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

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

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

10/10
330 out of 393 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
There can be little doubt that the Lord of the Rings film are the greatest trilogy of all time. At the time of writing the films sit on the top 250 at 7th, 10th, and 14th. No other trilogy is so highly rated. The Godfather Part III is nowhere to be seen on the Top 250.

Peter Jackson + Howard Shore + The the amazing actors (every single one was absolutely brilliant, from Elijah Wood to Marton Csokas. Not to mention all the stunt doubles, special effects team, editors all all others who made this film/these films what they are. And a special thanks to the country of New Zealand for being so very beautiful!

This is my favourite film of all time, no doubt about it, there are no criticisms that I believe are valid!
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent adventure
moviesleuth228 July 2008
Personally, I'm not a big fan of fantasy. I find it rather pretentious and for most entries into the genre, silly and/or melodramatic. But Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" is an exception. It's a grand adventure filled with limitless energy and likable characters. The series is at the top of the IMDb "Top 250" list, and rightly so. The first installment is extraordinary.

I'm going to skip over the plot because by now everyone knows it. The acting is pitch-perfect across the board. Elijah Wood has clearly grown out of his kid roles, and is terrific as Frodo. His co-star Ian McKellen may have gotten the Oscar nod for his role, but Wood equals him. Likewise, McKellen finds the right note for Gandalf. Everyone else is perfectly suited for their roles as well. Special note goes to Sean Bean, who made a career out of playing creeps and villains, is successful as Boromir, and shows that he has more range than people may give him credit for.

The stakes were incredibly high for this film series, and obviously it paid off. Peter Jackson deserves much of the credit. His work here is the fantasy answer to George Lucas' "Star Wars" saga. Unlike much of today's CGI, it wasn't done cheaply, and everything looks authentic, and the result is breathtaking. It's hard to tell what's real and what's not. But Jackson's skill goes beyond the effects. Much of the acclaim of Tolkien's series is the fact that he created a whole new world. Jackson does the same thing; it doesn't feel like a bunch of effects were added to sets or everything was in front of a blue screen. Jackson has created a whole new world, just like Tolkien did.

Of course, this would not be worth anything if Jackson and his co-writers hadn't written a screen adaptation that was worthy of the book (which I have not read). Everything moves smoothly and nothing feels left out or short-changed.

Many films have been destroyed by too much hype. But "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is so grand that nothing could diminish its spectacle. And what a film to deserve it!
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed