Most Helpful First | Newest First
5.0 out of 5 stars birthday Present,
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Widescreen) (DVD)It was a birthday present for my daughter, she pick it out and I bought for her. She is very happy with it.
5.0 out of 5 stars That was it.,
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Special Widescreen Extended Edition) (4 Discs) (DVD)That was the product that I was expecting. I'm quite satisfied whit my purchase. thanks a lot for you services.
2.0 out of 5 stars Poorly advertised,
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Special Widescreen Extended Edition) (4 Discs) (DVD)Advertised as excellent or mint I don't remember which. I received a scratched up set of four with Movie Gallery stamped on them. I only needed one of them for a box set so I can live with it. Poorly advertised
5.0 out of 5 stars Finally! A fantasy masterpiece for the cinema!, December 22, 2001,
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Widescreen) (DVD)A cinematic version of Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS ranks up with the hope that Lucas will indeed make another Star Wars Trilogy, and, I think I can safely say, this is one of the most anticipated films in the movie industry's long and checkered history. You would think it's movie paradise, considering Lucas has been in the midst of another Star Wars trilogy and LORD OF THE RINGS has finally got a cinema deal (live action!), but PHANTOM MENACE proved something of a disappointment (Mesa Jar Jar Binks!), and I think quite a few people will enter into the theatre with a certain amount of trepidation.
There's a reason for that. Three animated Tolkien films have been released with very problematic results. The 1978 Bakshi release is just embarrassing; the film is both incoherent and confusing.
Rankin & Bass's two movies are fine for little kids; those two films are Tolkien for Saturday Morning cartoons. They proved my introduction to Tolkien and for that I am thankful, but the movies still fail to capture the grandeur of Tolkien's imagination.
There are two things to consider here about a work of literature. Although all good literature has a polarization effect on its readers, this work has a gigantic legion of followers which are extremely dedicated to Tolkien's vision (I count myself a member of this camp). The other camp cannot figure out what the big fuss is about and why they should care about the novel.
Now, there's a reason why all this is relevant to the film: had Peter Jackson gone to far either way the film would have fallen apart. Appeal to much to the fan-base and you loose the general movie-goer. Appeal to much to the movie-goer, and you'll lose the fan-base.
So when the fan base learned of Peter Jackson's decision to film all three films at once, an unprecedented move in movie history, most of us really wanted it to be good but were just simply afraid. We've already been burnt. Would it be so bad that it would alienate both fan base and those who are just looking for a good movie?
Not only does Peter Jackson's film work, it's glorious, beautiful, has all the myth and grandeur of the book. Jackson, a Tolkien fanatic, could have gotten so involved with bringing out the extremely detailed world Tolkien gave us that the pacing would suffer or we'd lose patience with all these obscure details which would alienate the regular movie goer. Not only does he not alienate the general movie goer, but he entices the fan base so much they can't help but fall in love with his vision of Tolkien's world.
The only real flaw is how rushed first section of the movie is. Although I can understand cutting the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the way they handled getting the hobbits out of the Shire was unacceptable. There is not that sense of camaraderie between the Hobbits that there is in the book, there is no "conspiracy," and Merry and Pippin just join without any questioning from Sam and Frodo. While Jackson does a good job at building the Hobbits' characters and establishing their personalities, I couldn't come up with a good reason why Frodo and Sam would just let Merry and Pippin join them.
The Prancing Pony is worst. There is no questioning from the Hobbits about Aragorn proving himself, there is no scene about him asking them to trust him, and the whole sequence feels much too rushed. Sam only questions Aragorn while they're actually out of the inn and traveling.
Thankfully, however, that is the only real flaw. The rest of the things the script changed (tightening Elrond's council, the expansion of Arwen, cutting Sam from the Galadriel mirror sequence, tempting Aragorn with the ring, etc) I can see why they did it for dramatic tension. I also liked the way they handled Elrond's council, because that could have ruined the movie like it did with Bakshi's. They had established and covered much of the material in that chapter elsewhere by means of voice-over prologue and actually showing the viewer what is happening (especially with the Isengard sequences), and as a result lessened the screentime of that scene and helping with the dramatics of it.
As for the controversial expansion of Arwen, I tend to agree with the film makers in their decision to enlarge her role. By making her part of the Ford sequence it introduces the character and establishes her in the viewer's mind, and the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn is more fully explored. As for their romantic interlude in Rivendell, not only do I agree with that but think it should have been done in the book. Tolkien did not know who Strider was when he was first writing FELLOWSHIP, and did not go back and change the scenes to further explain the romance between Arwen and Aragorn, and by not including a scene in Rivendell to establish their love for one another lessens by far the impact of their union in Part III, and (for once) this romantic scene is actually an improvement on the book. As for her role in the Flight at the Ford, for the movie they made the right choice though the book is still preferable.
In achieving the balance between fan base and the more causal fan, this film is a spectacular success. Making a movie out of a book the size of Fellowship, the fact is you will have to condense, tighten, rearrange, and make changes for dramatic tensions. The mediums are different, and you cannot have a direct translation from a book to a film. Despite of what they cut, the movie still clocks in at three hours, which is very generous. The real problem with this film, as others noted, is it's going to be a full two years before we finally get to watch THE RETURN OF THE KING.
In the end, we get a movie that stays true to the SPIRIT of the book. This is what we Tolkien fans have long been waiting for. Thank you so much Peter Jackson and your cast and crew.
5.0 out of 5 stars Awesome Classic Movie,
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Special Widescreen Extended Edition) (4 Discs) (DVD)The Fellowship of the King, Extended Edition is a classic movie that is well worth the watching. It is loaded with action, full of fun, and emotionally draining from start to finish in a most delightful way. Peter Jackson's talent as a director shows through with characters who portray their parts brilliantly as Tolkien himself had created. Nothing is lost in the extended version and we become more acquainted with the actors in the 2 added Appendices filmed during the movie creation. What a great movie! Two thumbs way up!!!
5.0 out of 5 stars LOVED IT!,
I actually didn't see the film until it was released on DVD (the non-extended version). I borrowed it from a friend.
I sat through it and boy was I ever shocked. When the movie ended, I felt almost embarrassed because I actually got up in my living room, by myself, and clapped. I could not believe that I missed this at the theatres where the impact would have been much greater.
I raved to everyone about how great this movie was - of course, they already had seen it. So I felt behind the times.
I could not wait until the release of the Extended version on DVD, which I now own.
I learned my lesson and will listen to my friends on movies like this.
Bottom line - just watch this and enjoy yourself.
Cheers to everyone involved with the making of this movie.
5.0 out of 5 stars Lord Of the Rings Extended Version=Good Buy,
4.0 out of 5 stars If only it was more Tolkeinesque,
Visually I liked the movie a lot. The landscapes and battle scenes were spectacular. The Hobbits were portayed in a way that exceeded my expectations. The 'forced perspective' worked well for them. I'm so glad midgets or gnome-like renditions were not used. All the peoples were well done except two; the Orcs and Uruk-hai. Jackson went too far in making them disgusting. Sure they were a fallen race in Tolkein's world but they had personalities. Remember the power struggle between the competing Orcs that captured Merry and Pippin (part of the Two Towers)? 'Listening' to them talk in Tolkein's writings was fascinating. Watching and listening to Jackson's versions was revolting. I just wanted them to go away. Also Jackson made the Uruk-hai too big. They should have been smaller than Men, not bigger. My two favorite visual scenes were the Shire and Moria. Moria was great. The Balrog seemed perfect to me.
The musical score to this film creates just the right mood. Excellent job.
My two biggest disappointments were the Nazgul and Saruman. Visually the Nazgul are well done, esp. when the ring is worn and one enters their world. The problem is the caricaturish way in which they are employed. There is no subtlety or mystery; they should have all worn a sign saying "You are supposed to be afraid of me". The 'chase' scenes are awfully contrived, esp. the Race to the Fords, and Aragorn setting them all afire on Weathertop is ... apocryphal .... When I watch it on DVD I skip over these scenes. Since there is a lot of good material that was left out of (even the extended version) the film this is a shame. Given Peter Jackson's preference for 'dark/spooky' interpretations he could have done a great job with the Barrow Downs; oh well.
Saruman is portrayed as an overt servant of Sauron in this movie. Maybe the film media is too hard to capture the actual role of Saruman, which was a renegade pursuing his own ends who more hurt than helped Sauron.
The actors generally did a great job in their roles. Two I found especially good were the ones who played Sam and Boromir. I actually prefer the Boromir of the movie to the one in books, he is so well scripted and acted. Gandalf, Merry, Pippin, Elrond were well done. The only actor who I think was definitely miscast was Christopher Lee as Saruman. A perfect Saruman would have been the late Sir Alec Guiness though I'm sure there are others out there who have more charm than Lee. Lee is too one-dimensional in his acting, the character of Saruman isn't. The script is at least partly to blame for this.
Overall this is a very good film with a good shelf life. Even Tolkein purists will get much enjoyment from it. It would be an impossible task to make a perfect film of the Lord of the Rings. This version does fall short but not by enough to be missed. 4 stars.
5.0 out of 5 stars What a great value!,
WOW, what I missed! I'm glad that I never actually saw the original theatrical version, because this extended version of the film is true to the book I knew and loved as a kid.
While 4 DVD's seems like a lot to watch (and you probably WON'T watch them all in one sitting) there is just so much out there to see. This was truly one of the most ambitious theatrical projects ever taken on, and the extra DVD's provide so much background on the story, the people involved in making the film (a cast and crew of thousands!) and the intricate attention to detail in every sword, costume and setting. There are extensive interviews with the director, the producers, stars, artists and screenwriters and they all give their take on why the story and the film were so important.
For a few dollars (and a few hours) more, you really can get a fuller experience from the first installment of the film, and it makes the second film that much more enjoyable. Can't wait for the third installment.
Overall, a great investment and a must for any fan of this amazing cinematic experience.
4.0 out of 5 stars VISUALLY STUNNING, YET SOMEWHAT "EMPTY" CLASSIC,
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring [Import] (VHS Tape)I will probably get stoned for not finding this classic movie as great as everyone else in the world seems to. Granted, Peter Jackson's vision and treatment of the film are exquisite. Some of the visual effects, the scenery, art direction, costuming, makeup are mind-boggling and surreal as all get out. The acting is impeccable...Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, Sean Bean, and Christopher Lee especially. Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett are merely decorative in given such small and not fully developed characters. I also had some difficulty with some of the heavy British accents, and the film felt a little too long, and repetitive. There are some brilliant moments though...Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen's final scene together is truly moving and heartfelt; Sean Astin and Elijah Wood's touching scene in the boat is also very moving and evocative. It is a beautifully done movie. However, since I am not a follower of Tolkien's and view the movie on its own merits, I didn't quite feel the same awe and wonder with some of its contrived mechanisms. But, one can't deny its brilliance in film=making.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Widescreen, Collector's Boxed Set) by Peter Jackson (DVD - 2002)