Official, Fellowship of the Ring, Reviews and Thoughts thread,...

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Ok, I know the film is not out yet, but since there have been so many reviews for the Fellowship of the Ring, I figured I would make this thread as a place where everyone could post their thoughs on the movie. Also, if you have links to reviews you think people should read, post them here. This is not for Fellowship of the Rings discussion, thos is for thoughts (upon seeing the film) and reviews. Other than that, post in the Countdown Thread in Upcoming Movies Forum,...at least until the film comes out.

[JoBlo]

I'll be seeing it in about 12 hours from now...not really excited about it, to be honest, but it is still pretty cool that a movie can become such a HUGE SPECTACLE in this day and age...nice feeling...

I will hopefully get my review up by late Thursday night or something...go Frodo, go Frodo, go Frodo...! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JoBlo:
I'll be seeing it in about 12 hours from now...not really excited about it, to be honest, but it is still pretty cool that a movie can become such a HUGE SPECTACLE in this day and age...nice feeling...

I will hopefully get my review up by late Thursday night or something...go Frodo, go Frodo, go Frodo...! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif</font>

RE: I'm happy that you are not really excited about it. This means I can expect an objective review from you. I don't know if you have read any reviews so far, so I would like to give two "warnings" to you.

1. The Moria footage you have seen is the biggest action sequence in the film. So you might have already seen the best part. Most probably consider it as the highlight of the film.

2. The film ends very similarly to Empire Strikes Back. There is no real conclusion, the story just ends with a very open note. It's a sort of cliffhanger ending.

[Tuukka]

I took out Neo's review of the film from another topic to keep all the FOTR reviews in this thread. Here it is:

"ok i'll try to do a review wihtout any spoilers:
The first thing that i thought in the beginning of the film was wow!!!!!That's something that i had the whole movie.The environment kept amazing me and also all the characters from the book were cool to see.In the beginning of the film the history of the film is made clear to people who haven't read tolkiens books.Once you get that the adventure begins.Slowly one you get to know more about the characters.elijah wood is good as frodo,very convincing.The other members of the cast are also great.It looked like the story was written for the cast.The movie is very dark,but it's good to see that the hobbites of the fellowship make sure that sometimes you can laugh.Funny to see that the ''normal'' people make kind of funof the hobbits in different ways.The action scenes were truly amazing,but sometimes i thought that the action was too fast.The sword scenes were cool,but as a watche ri almost couldn't kep up with the action.I heard a lot of crtitique on the story and shit that peter jackson focuced on the sfx and not on the story.But you really see good character development and the story w\is very very good written as a screenplay.I never have read the books (maybe i will in the future)but i thougt that cate blanchet and liv tyler were too short in the movie.The music score by howard shore really fits with the legend and i think he did a great job.But peter jackson did in my point of view the best job.directing such as huge project and stay faitful to the book.I think that he will please most of the fans of tolkien.Look at the rating at us.imdb.that's a very good rating.i wonder what the rating will be in a couple of weeks.i really hope that the rating not goes down,cz i really think that's what the movie deserves.i would give this fantastic film 10/10" - NEO

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-12-2001).]

[Tuukka]

AND HERE ARE TWO VERY USEFUL ADRESSES TO KEEP UP WITH THE REVIEWS FOR LOTR:FOTR

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie-1108476/

The site has reviews from all the top critics. 13 reviews so far, approval meter 100%.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120737

The FOTR page at IMDB. already 24 reviews, 499 votes and an average of 9.5/10.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Here is the ULTIMATE source for reviews on Lord of the Rings:


http://www.lordoftheringsmovie.com/?getnews=1142

Check the negative reviews, and the Neutral reviews. Even those reviews say that it was a good movie, and say that people should go see it. The Ireland review said that he had a problem with the film because of the peoples hair,..........ok


p.s. Hope you like the film better than Harry Potter, Jo. Oh, and if you wouldnt mind, if you put a review up, if you have time try and write a spolier and non-spoiler. Cause personally I wanna know what you think about everything in the film, as opposed to an overview. And as surprising as it may seem, I hold your reviews in high regard (well, except for Memento).

[This message has been edited by Dumb-Fokker-** (edited 12-12-2001).]

[Mike Damone]

IMDB's rating has hit 9.6/10 after 702 votes. I've never seen any movie this high after this many votes. I doubt it will go any higher, but you never know???

[Tuukka]

Joblo's review is up, he gave it 7/10.

I thought Joblo was gonna give it 8/10, but his review was actually pretty much as I expected to be. If the flick would have been a scifi-film of similar quality, it probably would have gotten 8/10... (Come on Joblo, can you REALLY claim that Phantom Menace is a better film... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif)

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mike Damone:
IMDB's rating has hit 9.6/10 after 702 votes. I've never seen any movie this high after this many votes. I doubt it will go any higher, but you never know???</font>

I'm confident it will drop once the mainstream audiences see the film. So far the flick has been seen mainly by LOTR fans, and they are somewhat biased. Once it reaches 1000 votes, it will be allowed to be in the top 250 of all time of IMDB. It will most likely keep the number 1 spot for some time, and finally takes a more or less permanent place in the top 20.

[FlickJunkie]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mike Damone:
IMDB's rating has hit 9.6/10 after 702 votes. I've never seen any movie this high after this many votes. I doubt it will go any higher, but you never know???</font>

Yea, I noticed that and it's an amazing rating with that many votes... but the only thing it will do is go down because there will be a lot people that will just rate it a 1 because they can't stand the hype, just like with movies like Harry Potter and Titanic, which I can't fathom what makes some movies so bad that they deserve a 1.

And also what Tuukka said about mainstream audiences and the fanboys is very true as well.

[This message has been edited by FlickJunkie (edited 12-13-2001).]

[FlickJunkie]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
I'm confident it will drop once the mainstream audiences see the film. So far the flick has been seen mainly by LOTR fans, and they are somewhat biased. Once it reaches 1000 votes, it will be allowed to be in the top 250 of all time of IMDB. It will most likely keep the number 1 spot for some time, and finally takes a more or less permanent place in the top 20.</font>

Actually it's 1250 votes for the top 250 and I don't think it'll reach #1 because they're system of movie rating is difficult but movies like Memento and American Beauty both had ratings of 9.0 and 9.5, respectively, at one time which was the same and .5 higher than #1, The Godfather, American Beauty made it to #2 and Memento is at #9.

[This message has been edited by FlickJunkie (edited 12-13-2001).]

[Tuukka]

It was healthy to read Joblo's review, since the praise is getting a bit ridicilous heights around the net. Of course Joblo seemed to give the film (only) 7/10 mainly because he is not a fan of the genre and had some difficulties in following all the details. Since I ADORE the book, I'm not gonna have either of those problems. It's going to be at least 8/10 for me.

[Tuukka]

JoBlo's Review:

An amazing production filled with awesome special effects, terrifying beasts from another time, darkness all around, interesting characters and a pretty basic story to follow, but not one which engulfed me completely, most likely due to my personal disinterest in the genre and some smaller issues as well. But for what it is, this movie certainly delivers in spades with wizards, hobbits, elves, black-hooded riders (creepy as hell!), dwarves and everything else you'd ever want from an adult fantasy movie (not that kind of "adult" movie, ya perv!) and a little bit more. Have you read the books? Are you already a huge fan? Well, then my opinion will likely not resonate much with you. I haven't read the books, don't know much about the story or the people surrounding it and basically went in to this movie with low expectations, which were happily surpassed. Now there's been a lot of hype and early hyperbole on this film already ("One of the greatest movies of all-time?") but I suspect that everyone will come to their own appreciation of this film, in relation to their personal connection to the stories in the first place. For me, this was "just a movie" and as a film, it's a pretty solid fantasy/action/horror flick with some minor issues.

The most obvious one for me was the film's length, which seemed a little elongated at three hours. The narrative followed a very basic action/slowdown & exposition/action/slowdown & exposition pattern, and some of its more gradual scenes weren't as interesting to me as they might be to others who actually understood everything that everyone on the screen might've been talking about. To me, there were just too many weird and indistinguishable names and places to separate from one another, and after a while, some of them just got confusing (and why on God's green Earth did Frodo's buddy keep calling him Mr. Frodo?!? What was that all about?!) Don't get me wrong, the story is actually a pretty simple one to follow (kid with ring being helped by others must get it to a mountain and destroy it there), but some of the smaller details, the conversations about so-and-so in such-and-such a place, went over my head, every now and then. The dialogue was also decent for the most part (no over-the-top crap here and generally quite comprehensible), but some of the more overly-poetic stuff just struck me as a little too goofy. But I'm sure that would also depend on whether or not you're "into" this genre, and like I said earlier, it's really not my cup 'o brew. Other than that, the CGI was pretty solid and complementary (although I noticed that the hobbits were a little smaller in wide shots then they were in close-ups with their immediate environments) and the creatures lurking all around, very authentic to the point of scaring the shit out of me, even though I was in the theatre (the Ringwraiths, Orcs and that nutty ol' Cave Troll being the most kickass). As for the plot details, well, I bought most of the stuff that they tossed my way but I still don't understand how these nine individuals looking after the ring, could sustain themselves so well against these crazy animal-beasts-from-hell, during one particular scene in the Mines of Moria. I mean...c'mon...four of them are even under four feet tall, for God's sakes! Aaaaaanyway...

What was good about the movie? Well, after all this time in waiting, I have to give it up to director Peter Jackson for creating such an incredibly believable environment in which this otherworld takes place. Every detail of the film seemed real, from the dark, twisted battle sequence opening up the movie, down to the dirt in the little hobbit's fingernails. The sense of "evil" all about is particularly well established. Speaking of the opening, I also liked how they prologued the entire film with a little back-story for everyone to get the gist of the ring, its power and its history. Well done. The actual physical beauty of the picture was also quite astounding with amazing sets and real-life locations used to bring the movie to an astonishing life. And what would any film be without its actors and their credibility? Well, that was another plus on this film's side. The casting seemed perfect from top to bottom, with special kudos going out to Ian McKellen as Gandalf (the anchor of the movie, in my opinion), Elijah Wood as Frodo (despite/because of the overly bulgy eyes) and my main man Viggo Mortensen (still acting with his hair, but coming through gangbusters here). Christopher Lee is also to be noted. The pacing of the film was good enough, with action leading to exposition to more action, but there were at least a few scenes which seemed pretty extraneous to me (and not knowing the "full story", maybe I'm missing something...I don't know). The Cate Blanchett sequence in particular, struck me as somewhat unimportant to the grand picture of it all. To top it all off, the score also did a fine job of churning the film's butter, although it didn't necessarily overwhelm (whether that's good or not...you decide).

Overall, the movie certainly does give you the real sense of dread, fear and pressure that l'il Frodo is under, and provides for enough very cool sequences to make up for its little faults. It will definitely not play for everyone (in fact, I'm curious to see how it does at the box-office, because it's certainly not geared towards kids!) and the ending might not be appreciated by some (it's open-ended, you see-I didn't mind at all), but the overall picture is extremely well-made, with authenticity flowing from its pores and plenty to take in. A solid start to the three-part adventure.

7/10

And Arrow's review:

Let me put this out there before I go any further. I have never read the LOTR books (I read Hustler magazine), I’ve never been into “Dungeons and Dragons” (I dig getting laid more) and I’m not a big fan of movies with freakin' elves in them (reminds me of Christmas…I hate Christmas). So I went in to see this film with zero expectations. I actually wasn’t looking forward to it much.

Having said that, I can safely say that I genuinely enjoyed LOTR and was really surprised at how much I got into it. This is basically an old fashioned Good versus Evil tale (loved the whole “ring” concept) but with a huge budget and incredible production value. I was flabbergasted by this film’s impressive landscapes...be it the wide plains, the creepy forests, the snow filled mountains, the peaceful river or the spooky cave. My eyes were riveted to the screen. You will believe the world of this film. Walking through it with the main characters, I felt like a damn kid again. It was nice to re-capture that sense of wonder movies used to give me.

Action-wise, the flick also delivers. For a three hour movie it didn’t lag as much as I thought it would. The film is long but it never bored me. Once the premise is firmly established, the film’s beat is fairly simple. The gang talk and walk, then they fight or get into a dangerous situation. The flick keeps that flow the whole way till the end. The fight sequences themselves are extremely engaging and are filled with tension. Seeing Aragon (Mortensen) kick all kinds of bootie with his sword brought a huge smile to my face. I also dug seeing that archer dude (Bloom) doing all kinds of neat stuff with his bow and arrow. FUN TIMES!

The film’s special effects are astounding 98 percent of the time. Be it the “stunt” pieces (like the avalanche on the mountain), the creature effects (lots of kool monsters here) or the eerie “ring” dimension…this white boy was convinced. The biggest kicker however (for me) was seeing Frodo (Wood) look so small compared to Gandalf (McKellen). That was a kind of cute. I think everybody should own a Hobbit. They would make great pets. I will admit to being disappointed with the bald monster in the cave though. It looked too CGI for my liking, especially when the live characters would jump on it. It took me "out of the action" a bit. But overall, the visual effects are solid.

I do have some qualms with the flick though. First off, not having read the books there was a lot of stuff that the characters would talk about that went over my head. There are so many weird words and big names in this flick! My simple-minded arse didn’t always get it. Another negative is the block with Cate Blanchett. What was the point of that scene again? Actually what was the point of her character? The scene is too long for the amount of substance it gives us and it also makes way for the only “corny” sequence in the film. Without giving it away I will say that it involves a “morphing” effect that had me laughing when it was supposed to scare me. My last complaint would have to be the anti-climatic ending. It just ends and that’s it. Now I know this is the first part of a trilogy but how about ending it with a cliffhanger or a more memorable event? The ending let me down. I have to wait a whole year to know what happens next? Come on!

In conclusion, LOTR is an exciting, gorgeous and at times, somewhat scary ride. It brings up themes that I appreciate like friendship, bravery, honor, ass-whooping and it’s all wrapped up in Jackson’s sumptuous visual panache. George Lucas should watch this flick and take notes. One last thing: Is it me or was there some gay vibes between Frodo and Sam? My “gaydar” picked up something there. Another reason to see LOTR! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!


ACTING:

Elijah Wood (Frodo) does well and didn’t get on my nerves like I thought he would. I was dreading that “Do they, Gandalf?” line I kept hearing in the trailer but it went down smoothly. Ian McKellen (Gandalf) is perfect casting as the wizard. He reminded me of the “Alphagetti” cereal wizard. I like “Alphagetti” and I liked him too. Viggo Mortensen (Aragon) was my anchor to the film. I love the guy! Thank God that we had a real man to relate to in here. He sure knows how to whoop that ass and has charisma to boot. Sean Astin (Sam) does fine as Frodo’s close friend/maybe lover. I would’ve preferred an unknown to Liv Tyler (Arwen) for the elf part though. When she popped up, all I saw was Liv Tyler with pointy ears. I’m not a big fan.

Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) is hot; not much of a part. Orlando Bloom (Legolas) rocked as the archer. He gives a strong and subtle performance. Christopher Lee (Saruman) does his bad guy thang again. He’s good at it. Sean Bean (Boromir) stretches and plays a character that’s not fully evil. Good for him! John Rhys Davies (Gimli) didn’t do shite for me. His character bored me. Hugo Weaving (Elrond) stuck out like a sore thumb. He looks like a drag queen and I expected him to say “Mr. Anderson” at any time. Ian Holmes (Bilbo) is adorable as a Hobbit. He’s just so small. His moments of sudden evil scared the crap out of me though. Billy Boyd (Pipin) does ok as the semi-comic relief.


GORE:

We get lots of kool creature effects; a couple of cut off limbs and the Hobbits’ atrocious looking hairy feet.


T & A:

Again the Hobbits’ atrocious looking hairy feet. Are you excited yet?


DIRECTING:

Peter Jackson nails it. I appreciated his display of wild shots (the arrow bit…nice!), loved the slow motion (all about those wraith horsemen), the swooping camera shots and the powerful moments of silence. Tension is also present and I found myself sitting on the edge of my seat more than once (the bridge sequence…wow!). He also slaps in a few good “goose bump” moments. My favorite being the scene where Aragon (Mortensen) slowly turns (in slow-motion) to face an army of baddies alone. I felt that one. Great job, dude!


SOUNDTRACK:

We get a very powerful score that supports the images perfectly. It knows when to boom out and it knows when to be quiet to reinforce the power of specific scenes.


BOTTOM LINE:

Like I said earlier: I’m not into the whole “fantasy” genre. Elves don’t crank my dial and wizards neither. You should all keep that in mind while reading my review. If you dig that vibe than I’m sure you’ll love this flick more than I did. I was in the dark walking into this film and I still really liked it. It had enough action set pieces and imagination to satisfy me and you bet I’m there for the two other entries. I’m sure that part 2 will be even better since part 1 is mostly a setup for the sequel. I can’t wait to see the payoffs! I also wonder if Frodo and Sam will get it on in Part 2? Aaahhh...the suspense of it all!

***/****

[Tuukka]

I have to say to both Joblo and Arrow, that you are probably going to like the two sequels more. There is less exposition and more drama between the characters, the action also gets bigger and the tone darker. IMHO the books get better the further they go. I also think that when you get more into the whole concept of LOTR you might appreciate the first part more.

Anyway, I have a question for both of you:

There is the creature called Gollum who makes a couple of very small cameos in the film. He will be one the main characters in TTT and I wonder how well he comes off as a real character instead of a CGI effect. Of course his role is so small in FOTR that it might be hard to make a judgement. It's extremely important the audience can believe in him as a real character.

[ak]

I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed with Joblo's review of 7/10 (Not the quality of the review, but the final grade). He gave The Phantom Menace 8/10, which has completely surprised me.
But, he's seen the film, and I have not, so there you have it.

[JoBlo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
There is the creature called Gollum who makes a couple of very small cameos in the film. He will be one the main characters in TTT and I wonder how well he comes off as a real character instead of a CGI effect. Of course his role is so small in FOTR that it might be hard to make a judgement. It's extremely important the audience can believe in him as a real character.</font>

Dude...if it's the creature that had the ring in the first place....then I have to say that he kicked all kinds of butt!! In fact, slap that bugger in his own little movie...very cool-looking, very dark...very sexy...! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Granted, we didn't see much of him but from what I did see....me likey!

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed with Joblo's review of 7/10 (Not the quality of the review, but the final grade). He gave The Phantom Menace 8/10, which has completely surprised me.
But, he's seen the film, and I have not, so there you have it.</font>

But if you actually read the entire reviews for both films, the review for FOTR is a lot more positive. You have to remember that Joblo is a major Star Wars fanboy and appreciates sci-fi a lot more than traditional fantasy. So I think his opinion is somewhat biased.

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JoBlo:
Dude...if it's the creature that had the ring in the first place....then I have to say that he kicked all kinds of butt!! In fact, slap that bugger in his own little movie...very cool-looking, very dark...very sexy...! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Granted, we didn't see much of him but from what I did see....me likey!</font>

Yeah, that's him. The slightly frog-like creature that follows the fellowhip. I'm happy you dig the footage you saw of him, because Gollum is a very cool and complex character, and he will be playing an extremely important role in the sequels.



[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-13-2001).]

[ak]

As a great follower of everything in the special effects world, I've read a lot of articles from WETA (The sfx company behind the trilogy), and what they've said about Gollum is very good indeed - Using more sophisticated motion-capture techniques, rather than relying on the clumsiness of a mouse to move limbs. And they've developed software that will show the bones moving under his translucent skin, with all the veins. Impressive, most impressive.

[Mike Damone]

Ok, just to clear up my earlier post, I do realize FOTR's IMDB rating will go down. I was just pointing out how high it had gotten (I mean it has almost 600 10's out of 700 votes). Obviously, it will go down once mainstream audiences start to see the movie and when jerks vote 1's just out of spite.

[This message has been edited by Mike Damone (edited 12-13-2001).]

[kici]

LOL! I loved Arrow's line about him enjoying getting laid more.

Have you gotten any hate mail yet, Jo? Expect it. I've gotten no less than 20 hate e-mails in the past week cursing me vociferously after I posted that I wasn't that interested in seeing the movie. Now you've gone and opined that it isn't the most perfect movie ever made. Watch out, guy. Saying that LOTR isn't perfect is a pretty heinous crime.


[This message has been edited by kici (edited 12-13-2001).]

[JoBlo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
But if you actually read the entire reviews for both films, the review for FOTR is a lot more positive. You have to remember that Joblo is a major Star Wars fanboy and appreciates sci-fi a lot more than traditional fantasy. So I think his opinion is somewhat biased.</font>

Well, in order to prevent this thread from turning into a FOTR vs &lt;insert another JoBlo movie review here&gt; type thing, allow me to say that all movies are different, and I personally don't evaluate them all on the same scale (and many, aren't made to be evaluated on the same scale). In that sense, I don't think it's fair to compare one review vs the other in respect to grades only, because it doesn't really get into the nuances of the whole thing (and yes, you're right...my opinion is biased...but so is everyone else's...it's what you put on the table that clarifies your biases, and I think I made sure to let everyone know where I was "coming from" in my FOTR review-- "not a fan of fantasy films").

For the record, my review of PHANTOM is actually much more positive than the one for FOTR, so I will have to respectfully disagree with you there (I spend over a paragraph in my FOTR review discussing the "issues" I had with it), but the film itself was taken on a much "lighter" scale for me. FOTR is a very serious film.

And one more bit before I leave...I once asked Roger Ebert why he gave RAISING ARIZONA only one and a half stars and he replied with a simple "That's what I felt it deserved at the time that I saw it." I don't know how I would react to PHANTOM today and I don't know how I will react to FOTR in five years, so even though I understand and appreciate that my reviews are to be forever left up on the Net for people to comb over, it doesn't necessarily mean that I feel the same way about any such film today (although I NEVER drastically change my mind-- save for THE BIG LEBOWSKI which I adore now...those damn Coens!)

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kici:
LOL! I loved Arrow's line about him enjoying getting laid more.

Have you gotten any hate mail yet, Jo? Expect it. I've gotten no less than 20 hate e-mails in the past week cursing me vociferously after I posted that I wasn't that interested in seeing the movie. Now you've gone and opined that it isn't the most perfect movie ever made. Watch out, guy.
</font>

If I recall correctly, another schmoe in here once got hatemail as well and Joblo somehow managed to find out who the schmoe was (with his computer IP adress) and the asshole got banned. Maybe Joblo could help you with this.

Anyway, it was a fun discussion and I hope you will write further comments to that thread.

[JoBlo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kici:
LOL! I loved Arrow's line about him enjoying getting laid more.

The Arrow is a great man... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Have you gotten any hate mail yet, Jo?

Funny you should ask because JUST as I was reading this post, I heard a *bing* in my INBOX. Not a "hate mail" per se, but a fan asking me to upgrade my mark by half-a-point to separate it from other stinkers to which I gave a 7/10...which I expected (some movies are made to be "fun crap" folks...some aren't). Oh well...

Watch out, guy. Saying that LOTR isn't perfect is a pretty heinous crime.

It's actually getting kinda scary out there...I just read a couple of RAVING REVIEWS of the film on another movie site (cough, cough) and it just blows my mind how SUPER-SERIOUSLY some people are taking this....brrrrr...pretty scary actually. Anyway, hopefully I won't get too bashed but I'm sure some people are sharpening their ass-sticks as we speak...should I bend over...NO THANKS!!

[kici]

Thanks for the concern Tukka, but I found out who it was yesterday. My boss is quite proficient with computers and he traced the little jerk's address through his IP. It wasn't anyone who had posted to that particular thread I'm glad to say. The e-mails stopped for awhile but when they started again and the count reached 20 I had to do something about it. More and more filthy language like you would not believe.

Just a teenaged boy having a litle fun with mommy and daddy's computer. He won't be bothering me again. He took offense at my "denigration" of his favorite franchise and decided to have a little fun. He didn't threaten me. He just cursed me upside down and every which way possible. Totally uncalled for. Unfortunately, any enthusiasm I had for LOTR is completely soured by this experience. I have no inclination to see the film at all. I keep wondering how many Tolkien fans are like that kid. It's mind blowing that someone could be such a megageek that he'd resort to that kind of behavior over a film--any film. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif

EDIT: Someone actually asked you to upgrade your review, Jo? That's wild. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif So far there's been what, a million glowing reviews to two or three not so perfect ones? Don't go bending over just yet.

[This message has been edited by kici (edited 12-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by kici (edited 12-13-2001).]

[Tuukka]

Joblo, I thought your review was very well written and yes, you did inform us that you are not attracted to fantasy films. So I don't have any problem with that.

I re-read you PM review and it indeed does come off as a bit more positive, althought it also comes off as less detailed and analytical. I guess that I was filling between the lines when I was reading it the first time.

[Tuukka]

It's indeed interesting that Joblo is e-mailed to raise his grade by someone how probably has not even seen the film.

When I was younger, I also wanted the films I liked to be succesful critically and at B.O. I guess that it made me feel that my opinion was more "right" if everyone else felt that way as well.

But the best films I have seen in recent years have all performed very modestly at B.O. Some have downright flopped. And many got lot's of negative criticism. The best films of the last three years for me are: Sling Blade, Magnolia, Ninth Gate, Fight Club.

I don't care if FOTR get's critical praise, I only care if I like it. I don't care how much money it makes, as far as it makes 400 million worldwide. That should guarantee a healthy post-production budget for the sequels.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

One request for though, JoBlo. After you have seen the film again, and had another chance to take it all in, stop by this forum and give us your thought, ok?? On another note, I was very encouraged that a serious fantasy movie got a 7/10 and 3/5 from people who dont like fantasy, werent looking forward to the film, and,......dont like fantasy again. Nonetheless, I think this is a movie that both of them will appreciate much more on the second viewing, and will appreciate it much more after the conclusion of the trilogy. .........than again,.....maybe not.

[The Heart Collector]

That's 3/4, actually.

Even better.

[LordKaruku]

JoBlo and Harry Knowles are on nearly entirely opposite ends of the spectrum... on the one hand we have an immature 30-year-old geek who's obsessed about the Lord of the Rings books his whole life, witnessed parts of the filming, and has been anticipating the movie more than any other for years... and on the other hand we have a guy who doesn't like fantasy movies, hasn't read the books, had low expectations and some issues with the movie.

The fact that the two reviews from those drastically different viewpoints are 7/10 and 10/10 (effectively) makes me happier than either of those reviews would have on their own. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[JoBlo]

That's a good way of looking at it, LordKaruku...

[The Heart Collector]

There's a big difference. Joblo's review is ACTUALLY a review. Harry's "review" is a bunch of incoherent rambling that gave me a headache because of it's sheer idiocy.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Come on now, lets not bash AICN. I happen to think that those were very well-written reviews, and I do give them credibility. Quint (who I have met, by the way) Dave, Mortiary, Harry,....they all enjoyed the film immensly. Hell, im glad JoBlo even gave it a 7/10. I was expecting worse from someone who has such a distaste for fantasy movies. I have to ask you though, Jo; do you think youll go and see the movie again, just to see if you catch anthything you missed. For you, is it worth going back and seeing again??

[JoBlo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Come on now, lets not bash AICN. I happen to think that those were very well-written reviews, and I do give them credibility. Quint (who I have met, by the way) Dave, Mortiary, Harry,....they all enjoyed the film immensly. Hell, im glad JoBlo even gave it a 7/10. I was expecting worse from someone who has such a distaste for fantasy movies. I have to ask you though, Jo; do you think youll go and see the movie again, just to see if you catch anthything you missed. For you, is it worth going back and seeing again??</font>

Not anytime soon, I'm afraid. Maybe once this crazy X-Mas rush dies down, or on DVD or something. Incidentally, I don't want to "bash" AICN either, but to be honest, Harry himself admitted that his point of view about the whole thing was so drenched in his own experiences with the project that I assume it would be "kinda" difficult to really say anything negative about it...and Moriarty's...well, whatever...I guess he really, really, really, really loved it!! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Either way, I really don't think anyone is worried that the movie isn't good anymore, right....? I mean, I think it's pretty established at this point that, in the very least, the film is exquisitely made and it will likely be enjoyed even more by those who dig that sort of thang...

Can't wait to hear everyone else's opinion come the 19th...woo-hoo, you all get to see it on the same day...around the whole world..

[The Heart Collector]

You see, Moriarty's review had full sentences, paragraphs, a sense of cohesion. It MADE SENSE.


Harry's review didn't. I'm not bashing the site in general, I'm simply saying that the only one that could understand that review is Harry himself, which is NOT positive at all.

Anyway, it opens the 25th here. DAMN. I don't go to the movies on the 25th. I'll have to wait. DAMN.

[This message has been edited by The Heart Collector (edited 12-14-2001).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Ok, JoBlo, just one more question (for now). Can you at least, understand, why so many people would be interested in the movie?? Or does it just seem like they are holding it in too high of praise?? Like, myself; I simply cannot wait, and think it will be one of my favorite films of all time - opinions aside, can you understand that??

[JoBlo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Ok, JoBlo, just one more question (for now). Can you at least, understand, why so many people would be interested in the movie?? Or does it just seem like they are holding it in too high of praise?? Like, myself; I simply cannot wait, and think it will be one of my favorite films of all time - opinions aside, can you understand that??</font>

Of course I can!! (did I sound like I didn't understand or something...I'm confused... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/confused.gif I mean, one need only look at the success of the books worldwide, look at the numbers of successful LOTR websites on the Net, the number of threads on our board, the sales of LOTR movie posters that we have, etc...the fan base is DEFINITELY there!!

I mean, anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty delusional, but as I said in my review, I'm actually VERY CURIOUS as to what "regular people" will think of it and how that is ultimately gonna translate at the box-office. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the movie's gonna open pretty HUGE on its first weekend (the fanbase alone will ensure that), but as I'm sure you know, any movie needs a grander spectrum of fans, in order for it to reach that greater level of success (at least, at the box-office) and I'm looking forward to seeing that...

I was at another movie screening this morning and overheard other critics talking about LOTR (and these are the "respected" journalist-type bobos) and one of them was actually comparing it to THE MUMMY RETURNS!! And I mean...seriously!! He said that it was "all special effects and battles that we've seen a million times before..."

If that's the kind of attitude some of the "regular" movie-goers might take, well...let's just wait and see...

[FlickJunkie]

Word... that's all I got to say Jo, is word. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif I gotta see what the general "non-LOTR fans" say as well... I am one of them as well, I don't really care about LOTR.

[This message has been edited by FlickJunkie (edited 12-14-2001).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Some may not agree, but I think this film is going to strike a chord with regular audiences. I mean, it has great acting, special-effects, a great story, and it is an epic adventure tale. Tons of people like epic adventure tales (....I think). Regardless, I think most (and I do mean most) will like FotR. I dont mean love, but I do think alot will like it very much. What about you Jo?? Does it have any mainstream appel, in your opinon. (not to bog you down with questions)

[JoBlo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Tons of people like epic adventure tales (....I think). Regardless, I think most (and I do mean most) will like FotR. I dont mean love, but I do think alot will like it very much. What about you Jo?? Does it have any mainstream appel, in your opinon. (not to bog you down with questions)</font>

I'm not good at predictions, so I won't give it a go here, but you're right about "regular" people loving epic tales, that's fer sure (look at the success of movies like TITANIC, BRAVEHEART, DANCES WITH WOLVES, etc...). But there are 2 things that might not appeal to EVERYONE with this film and that is that it really is QUITE DARK (it's not a happy-go-lucky type flick) and secondly, that it's obviously a "fantasy" movie filled with strange behaviors, words, places that not everyone can easily identify with or appreciate (as opposed to say to three movies that I mentioned above).

Might it be the next STAR WARS? I have no idea, but I can say that I think the film itself is made on such a strong production level, that it AT LEAST has the potential to do that, if people jump on board (in other words, it's not badly made, so everything is "in place" for success on a grander scale...)

I'm telling you...I'm VERY CURIOUS about weekend number 2 of this film...

[Tuukka]

It's hard to predict the success of the film. It WILL make enough money (400 million worldwide), but mainstream audiences are somewhat biased against fantasy. They think it's dumb and for kids. Also, it end with an anti-climatic note which will work against it. Then again, mainstream audiences tend to like epic adventure movies with big emotions. I don't know if the film will break big into mainstream, but the fan base with highly positive reviews and big hype will guarantee it to be a sizeable hit. It might drop 50% on the second week, but I think it will have reasonable legs, because the word of mouth seems really good. And there is no heavy competition. Vanilla Sky, Ali and Black Hawk Down are all gonna gonna perform below expectations, if the reviews are to be trusted. Each one of them seems to be lacking in real mainstream interest, once the word of mouth gets out.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, with all the good reviews coming in from everywhere, and all the fans of the book, and people who like films, and people who are interested, all flocing to the film, it will undoubtedly attract the attention of regular people (those who werent already interested) and people who might not have been interested before. Bigger numbers always equal the "might as well see what everyone is talking about" effect. And personally, I think that the movie transcends the fantasy genre, and can just be considered epic. Again, it is impossible to predict, but I have a good feeling it will do great.

[Muha]

hey dumb fokker... i notice you are from warren... im just across the border here in hermitage.

got a question for ya... if i buy tickets the day of the show... 19th... for the 7 show and my dad gets them for me at 12 or so.. what time should i be there since we sorta have the same demographic of people living here.

should all my friends (im taking 12 btw) meet at 6 or so?

530?

thanks,
Muha

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Hey Muha. Well, since so many of you are going, I would say meet at 5:30. Not everyone is going to be on time, and it will be opening night, and all. It might also be a problem, because if you get there too late, you all wont get to sit together, so yeah, 5:30, maybe a little before.

[Ender]

Man am I stoked about this one! Due to the relativally obscure location of my home town, I see a movie on opening day about once in a blue moon (AI was the only one so far this year). But for special occasions like this, my buddies and me all pile into the jeep and make the three hour pilgremage to the nearest real theatre (our theatre is so tiny it doesn't get dick until at least three weeks after opening).

That's one of the best things about a movie like this. The huge anticipation, the entire mentality of it, like it's more than a movie, it's an event.

Just seven more hours until we head out (a guy's got to get some sleep after all). I'm counting the minutes...no really, I'm actually counting.

[LordKaruku]

Well, I just got back from a midnight screening, and I can say that as a Tolkien fan I thoroughly enjoyed the first film in Jackson's series. It's a perfectly choreographed dance number with a few missteps, but those are very minor quibbles and pale in comparison to the genius of the rest of the film.

Rather than write a full review, since you've already read ten billion of them, I'll just touch on some of my current thoughts, both good and bad. If you don't want anything about the movie spoiled you might not want to read.

*** LOTR MOVIE SPOILERS

At a few moments in the film, Jackson morphs a character's face or eye into that of Gollum to suggest the corrupting influence of the Ring... once with Bilbo, and once with Galadriel. The actors did a great job at showing this already, and I didn't think there was any need to resort to CG to prove the point.

Speaking of Galadriel, during the monologue when Frodo offers her the Ring about becoming great and terrible, we actually see her change into an evil Dark Queen Galadriel. The effect was fascinating, but I felt innappropriate, if only because the non-book reading audience might be led to believe this transformation is actually taking place and is not just an illusion.

- There's a shot in Moria where Gollum's hand is seen in the foreground as he pulls himself up on a ledge. Holy Flying Fuck!! That CG hand is to Jar Jar Binks what an X-Wing is to Lost In Space. The Gollum eyes looked less impressive, but if that hand is any indication what WETA is up to, I can't wait to see Gollum in Two Towers.

- The CG overall is amazing, perhaps because a lot of it isn't CG, but miniatures and landscapes. There are a few effects, such as Gwahir the eagle, that aren't so hot, but they are dwarfed by the number of amazing shots, most notably of Orthanc. The hobbit-shrinking is seamless.

- Liv Tyler is just fine. Thank God.

- Despite any quibbles about the way her character is presented, Cate Blanchett is AMAZING.

- John Rhys-Davies, besides being unrecognizable, isn't given much to do as Gimli in this installment. I'm guessing Jackson is saving the Legolas/Gimli relationship for Part 2.

- Sauron, as seen in the film's prologue, is imposing, but not quite given the opportunity to be truly terrifying. When he flails around knocking warriors left and right, I made an unfortunate connection with the PS2 game "Dynasty Warriors 2" which features a very similar motion... The lidless eye in the Third Age, however, is done remarkably well, and is truly terrifying.

- The Balrog scene is fantastic--- acting, character design, effects, music, editing, et.al all reach a peak of perfection here.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

Good Morning, Boy's and Girl's how are we doing this fine and wonderful morning????? Ok, i'll stop the bullshiting. Anyway, my paper is finaly allowing to post my review here so without further ado, My LOTR Review:


In my honest opinion, there is only one word to desribe Lord Of The Rings, and that word is MasterPiece, it is without a doubt a classic in the making. The special effects are the best I have ever seen in a movie like this. Wait a minute, there is no other movie out there quite like this one, it stands on it's own feet. I'm sure all of you know the plot so i'm not going to waste time with it, what I am going to do though is tell that I have totally fallin in love with everything LOTR, at first I was a little iffy on the movie but then after I saw for the first time like a week ago I relised how wrong I was. This is without a doubt the best movie of the year, it is so real that it makes any other movie like this seem like a wannabe. I truly had an experince I will never forget as I was sitting in the theatre watching this classic movie unfold, I became one with the story, I formed feelings towards the charecters, I came to care and respect what they were doing. When they cried I felt like crying, when they fought for there lives I was proud. Now i'm going to get away from what I felt, and focus on the movie itself. The acting in LOTR is fantastic, not one of the actors gives a bad performance, of course i'm not a very big fan of Elijah Wood but i'd have to say that he was perfect for the part of Frodo, no other actor would of been able to give such a spectacular performance, he brought feeling to the charecter, he made the charecter real. As for Ian Mckellen i'd say the same thing, he was perfect for the part of Gandalf, and if this man does not receive an Oscar nomination I will never in my life be able to forgive the accademy for leaving out probaly the best acting job I have seen this year. the fight scenes in this movie are truly unforgetable, they are very real, and capture the spirit of the audience as they watch. I will have to admit that some of the CGI in this film looks almost to fake, but that is easily forgetable. I have never read the LOTR books so i'll admit that the ending was very un-expected, but that is also easily forgetable because thats what they had to do, it makes the audience want more and thats a good thing, people who are not fans of LOTR will keep returning as the sequels keep coming out, just to see what has happend to there dear friend Frodo and his friend Sam. It's an interesting and yet sometimes emotional story, one that almost had me crying in the middle of the movie. Peter Jackson has done a spectacular job at recreating Middle-Earth and capturing the true spirit of J.R.R.'s books. Lord Of The Rings is beautiful, it features the best Score I have heard since Titanic. And the cinematography is just breath-taking, the movie will definetly take home that award come March. I can't really say anything more about this movie, it's so good, and so beautiful that I will never forget watching it, and I look forward to seeing again on Saturday. Even if you haven't read the books I still recommend this movie, and to all you LOTR geeks you have nothing to worry about, the movie is perfect in every possible way, and it does not disappoint. Trust Me...

FINAL GRADE: 10/10


NOTE: Sorry if my review isn't all that great I tried as hard as I could to put what I felt about this movie down, but it was hard to do. Yes, I know the reveiw is not very well written but hey it's a little past 7:00 in the morning here in South Dakota and I haven't been to bed yet so give me a break, I tried... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif.. I hope you all are smart enough to relise that I loved the movie and I plan on buying all 3 books by next week, God, it's such a great movie!!!! I WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE "THE TWO TOWERS" AND I WANNA SEE IT NOW GOD DAMNIT!!! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Scorchlord]

I'm leaving in 10 minutes. My veins are nearly bursting with bubbling excitement.

See you in 3....

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Man, I still have about 7 and a half hours to go. Nice review travolta - you were one of the ones doubting the movie, so I was looking forward to reading your review on the film. Anyways, go check out lordoftheringsmovie.com for all of the reviews on the film. Oh, and rottentomatoes has just added a whole lot of reviews for the film. Last I checked it was at 39% with 42 good reviews, and 3 bad ones. Cream of the Crop is 100% though. Anyways, I wont be writing a review until after I see the movie twice, so ill put it up on Saturday. later

[totemrepublic]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Man, I still have about 7 and a half hours to go. Nice review travolta - you were one of the ones doubting the movie, so I was looking forward to reading your review on the film. Anyways, go check out lordoftheringsmovie.com for all of the reviews on the film. Oh, and rottentomatoes has just added a whole lot of reviews for the film. Last I checked it was at 39% with 42 good reviews, and 3 bad ones. Cream of the Crop is 100% though. Anyways, I wont be writing a review until after I see the movie twice, so ill put it up on Saturday. later</font>

you mean 93% http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Ebert only gave it 3 stars...

[Wiggleworm]

This movie was perfect! Peter Jackson has just become my new favorite director. LOTR had me speechless when I left the theater. I thought it was going to be good, but just for eye candy. I was wrong, this movie is more then just eye candy (even though there is plenty). I have not left a movie that much in wow since I was a kid, words could not describe how good this movie is. After the movie was over everyone started clapping, I have never seen that happen. I am going to see it again this weekend.

LOTR 20/10


[This message has been edited by Wiggleworm (edited 12-19-2001).]

[Scorchlord]

Wow.

That's all that can be said. Just, "Wow." Visually, it's absolutely stunning. Barad-Dur is monstrously huge, filled with raging darkness and brimstone. Sauron's lidless eye burns with hatred and a fervor to find his Ring. The acting is superb, spot-on. I wasn't watching actors in the roles. I was watching the characters themselves. The pacing is great, especially for a 3 hour film. I had to go to the bathroom about halfway in, then forgot about it at the start of Moria - be assured, Moria is absolutely stunning. So vast, so dark...and the emotion of Gandalf's death is staggering. I knew what to expect, but I still felt that huge sense of loss. IT was phenomenal, the emotional impact - the dread, the fear (I jumped a few times), the sense of hope, the sense of failure.

And no worries about Liv Tyler. Not only was she good in her short role, she's a hottie to boot.

Now, the problems:

First, there's some comedy slapstick that doesn't work. It's flat. It mostly involves Merry and Pippin. Occasionally, they're funny. More often than not, they aren't. Example: Elrond says, "You shall be known as the Fellowship of the Ring." To which Pippin says, "Great. Where are we going?" It completely takes away the sense of seriousness that the scene instilled in the viewer.

Second, some of the CG work is bad. Very bad. The cave troll is weak. I didn't like the CGI at all. Yuck. Looked very, very fake.

Also, Gollum bothered me greatly. I didn't like his face or eyes. It didn't look real to me, which can be a major problem for the Two Towers, considering his part is so big. Voice is great, though.

THe morphing effect with Bilbo is comical. He reaches for the Ring and his eyes bulge and his teeth sharpen. Give me a break! Just have him snarl and reach for it lustily, don't make him look like a cartoon character.

Speaking of cartoon characters, the morph of Galadriel is, yes, a cartoon character. It looks fake, the voice gets deep, and it's ridiculous. I just didn't like it.

And this is a personal gripe, but they showed too much of the watcher in the water. They should have just shown the tentacles - I'm a firm believer in the "less is more" mentality, and they showed too much of the watcher. And what they did show looked just as bad CGI as the cave troll.

On the whole, it's an excellent film that never drags. The acting is top-notch, the music is grand, the visuals are unbelievably stunning, and it frankly kicks ass. I'm digesting this sucker on a few nights sleep, then going back again for another round. There's so much detail, so much to take in, that it's very difficult to put words into the feelings.

9/10

[Dachande]

dicaprio_travolta_man just gave the perfect review for the perfect movie. I went to a 12:00am showing last night, and I have not stopped thinking about it. The acting, effects, and action were all terrific. The cinematography was just breathtaking. Lord Of The Rings sucks you into the story just like the book. You don’t feel like you are watching a movie, you feel like you are on the adventure with all of the characters. I did not want the movie to end. I hate it that we have to wait a year to see The Two Towers. Lord Of The Rings 10/10

[Tuukka]

I have just read countless of new reviews at www.aintitcool.com (http://www.aintitcool.com) from common movie-goers, and many are really disappointed because the film was "only" good, and they were expecting a life-changing experience. This was bound to happen.

I will see it tomorrow and I'm expecting an adequate adventure flick. If the film is more than that, then I'm positively surprised. Before I go to see the film I will re-read all the most negative reviews, just to prevent myself from expecting more.

[Dachande]

Go to yahoo and look at all of the positive reviews people gave this film. When I last looked out of 68 people only 4 did not like it. Everyone else gave it 5/5 stars.

[This message has been edited by Dachande (edited 12-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Dachande (edited 12-19-2001).]

[ClockworkOrange#1]

I had the pleasure of seeing The Lord Of The Rings at a midnight screening at a local theater. The showing was sold out, with normal people, but who is actually normal for seeing a 3 hour movie at midnight and Tolkien fanboys dressed up as characters from the film. These people also make me laugh. I will start this off with one complaint that really pissed me off during the movie. The theater was like 85 degrees for the entire running time. Sitting in one spot for 3 hours when the heat is blasting is not fun and at some points I was getting restless. I will not be summing the plot up in this review. I will tell what I liked, loved, and didn't like.

This is THE best film of the year a 10/10. There is no doubt in my mind that this is true. A lot of the positive reviews I read said they have never had a movie going experience like they had when they saw this movie. I can only think of one other film that when I saw it changed the way I thought about films and that is A Clockwork Orange. After seeing that film I was introduced to a master filmmaker and many other films that I never would have watched. Peter Jackson does everything right in this film. I had not read any of the trilogy, and found the prologue to be a great intro to those who weren't that familiar with the material. The effects in the battle at the beginning were flawless except for the part where Sauron uses the ring to fight against the humans and the elves. When he hits them and they go flying I felt the effects were a little weak. That was the only scene where I thought the FX were not what they could have been. The rest of the film in my opinion is flawless. For some reason it is hard for me to write down and try to explain why I liked the film as much as I did.

ACTING
The acting in LOTR is great throughout. From the main characters to the supporting cast. The standout of the cast is Ian McKellen(SP?) Since I didn't read the books I never had the chance to imagine what his character would look like in my mind, but watching him become his character I don't think anyone else could have played the part. The same can be said about Christopher Lee's chilling portrayal of Saruman. I'd would use more adjectives to describe his character but you get that enough from reviews from critics. Elijah Wood does a good job of capturing what Frodo is going through. There are a lot of close ups of his face and eyes showing the emotions that he is going through as he did not have as much dialogue that I thought. Sean Astin as Samwise is great. His devotion to Frodo is seen throughout and while I hear he may be gay, could it just be that he doesn't want his friend to get killed? He did make a promise to watch over Frodo. I will admit that the hug between him and Frodo after Frodo pulls Samwise out of the water is a little suspect but hey who gives a shit. As for the rest of the cast my favorite is Legolas. Bloom just looks like he had a great time playing this character and I loved seeing him kills all those orcs with his arrows and daggers. Pippin and Merry are perfect for the comic relief, you gotta love the scene in the Mines of Moria where he accidentaly knocks that body down the well. The look on his face, to me, was very funny. Sean Bean, who kicked ass in Goldeneye has one of the most developed characters in the amount of onscreen time he is given. He goes from greedy human to protector and then back to greedy and power hungry and to a protector of the hobbits in a truly sad death scene. Ian Holm as usual does a good job showing the good side of what hobbits are like and what the dark side of the ring can bring.

The action scenes are some of the best, if not the best scenes of action ever put on screen. They are exhilirating to see the big screen. Some are small while others are large battles. The cave troll scene is amazing. I only wish there was less cutting and more openness in the scene. But then I had no idea what was in store for my eyes. After being chased by goblins or orcs the fellowship is then chased by a Balrog. I was in awe at the size of the monster and even better was when Gandolf said "YOU SHALL NOT PASS." I love that for some reason. Maybe its just the fact that this old guy is standing up against this giant monster is cool as hell. The production design is top notch. Everything from The Shire To Lothlorien is conceived with great attention to detail. There is a real sense of urgency to destroy the ring when the camera swoops down through the underground where Sarumon is making his army.

I will say this, Lord Of The Rings is better than Star Wars. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen. Complaints that my friends made were that the whole movie was just action, talking, more action, more talking. I understand where they are coming from but i felt the action sequences were perfectly balanced with the story parts that moved the plot forward. I really dont think that the above review is really a review but whatever. Go see this movie, forget the positive and negative reviews you may have read and go see a great film made by a fantastic director who put everything into this film.

[Dachande]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ClockworkOrange#1:
Go see this movie, forget the positive and negative reviews you may have read and go see a great film made by a fantastic director who put everything into this film. </font>

Absolutely, you can tell this movie was made with heart and not just for money. Peter Jackson did a great job with it.

[daddiefatsacks]

Hey Scorchlord, thanks for spoiling some of the movie for me, you know there are still some people who have never read the books, but thanks for spoiling some crucial moments (I supposed, the death of a certain character). Fuck.

[RicochetShaw]

WHOA!!!!!! LOTR IS ALREADY NUMBER 31 AT IMDB AND HAS AN AVERAGE OF 9.7 STARS!!!!!!

[FlickJunkie]

It'll drop though RicochetShaw, once the general public starts to see it and over the next few weeks it'll drop. Not until tomorrow, but I think more on Friday will we see the average for todays users who voted.

I'm not surprised the CGI looks bad, each LOTR movie had a budget of $90 million each, Harry Potter supposedly had "bad" CGI and they had a budget of $125 million, $35 million more.

[A Canadian ThereWolf]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by RicochetShaw:
WHOA!!!!!! LOTR IS ALREADY NUMBER 31 AT IMDB AND HAS AN AVERAGE OF 9.7 STARS

</font>

ThereWolf was just about to mention that. At #31, It flew ahead of "Fight Club", "A Clockwork Orange", "Se7en", "American History X", "2001", "The Sixth Sense", and "The Wizard Of Oz". Whoa!

Yesterday it was like at 55, last week it was in the 200's!

Just imagine what it'll be at on Friday!

[This message has been edited by A Canadian ThereWolf (edited 12-19-2001).]

[Scorchlord]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daddiefatsacks:
Hey Scorchlord, thanks for spoiling some of the movie for me, you know there are still some people who have never read the books, but thanks for spoiling some crucial moments (I supposed, the death of a certain character). Fuck.</font>


If you don't expect spoilers, why are you on this thread? If you haven't noticed, it's for people who have seen the movie and want to comment on it.

[Benny]

Now I really wanna see it, even though I know squat about the whole story!!!! Pray that I can get to go tonight...

[Benny]

I'll be there tonight at 7, it looks great!
1 hour, 8 minutes to Middle Earth...

[Common Sense Man]

Well I am fresh from my viewing of LOTR and it was just as good as I had hoped it would be.

I tried to stay away from the extreme hype to not get too excited but I would not have mattered it was an excellent movie.

I give it 9/10.

Why you ask if I liked it so did I not give it 10/10 with one hundred exclamation points, well first I am an adult. Second it was a great movie the best I have seen this year but is it the ultimate movie of all time? I do not think so.

I have every confidence the trilogy will come to find its place among the best movies ever made.

I have read the books multiple times and the small deviations where fine with me and did not distract me from the story.

Hey with all that could have happened in the adaptation having a few extra frames or Liv was no problem.

All the major scenes that I had played out in my head over and over again came out great.

The score was top notch as well as the acting and chemistry.

Unlike Joblo who did not read the book and had a hard time with some of the dialogue, all the place names and references just made the tapestry richer for me.

And I am so glad they did not dumb down the story.

Wood was great as Frodo, I did not think he would be but he was perfect.

This was a great beginning to the next two movies which will contain much more action. So I am really looking forward to them. I think they did a very good job of setting up the next movies with extra visuals that where not necessarily in the book.

For once the hype is true, especially if you are a Tolkien fan. And it was not overdone to make sure the fans liked it, it was simply made well.

I joked to my wife that at least we would not see anyone in costume because unlike Star Trek there have been few popular TV versions. Well I was wrong, I saw at least on Orc dude and a couple Blacked Caped weirdos.

Go see it even if you think you will hate it, you will not, it is that good.

Out.......

[ak]

Just come back in from watching the film.

I was not completely bowled over by it, but it was quite spectacular all the same.

I'm not going to bother with a full-blown review, or any kind of review cause everything has been said by others all over the globe, although I will say how brilliant Elijah Wood was, and indeed the rest of the cast.

The special effects were good, some were brilliant, but nothing astounding was on display, other than one or two effects.

The emotional content out-weighed everything in the film - It was spot-on.....completely amazing. Elijah Wood was un-believably good in his role.

One literally big thing I was dissapointed with though was the Balrog - It wasn't what I hoped for (It looked like that dog in Sigourney Weaver's fridge in Ghostbusters). Here is where my imagination went one up.

Final Grade: 8/10.

It's not one of my greatest films of all time, nor is it in my top 10 of favourites, but it was still very, very good.


[This message has been edited by ak (edited 12-19-2001).]

[AlienClown]

Yeah, that part of the movie/story was also ruined by Scorch's review. And this whole thread isn't about spoilers, I read the whole thing, and none of the reviews I read spoiled the movie, and if there were spoilers in a review, a warning was given and I skipped that review, it would have been nice if you had included one in your review.

[Scorchlord]

Read the title of the thread and then bitch at me. Until then, I care not what you say.

[AlienClown]

Found this quote from a review and I have to agree:
"The IMDb Top 250 List serves no purpose at this point. Nearly 100 films are from within the last three years on that list. It's just absurd. While being excellent, Lord of the Rings is no all-time classic, though by the looks of it's status on the list, it'll probably be in the top 10 some time soon (Memento's a joke)."

[Warrior728]

This movie was absolutely AMAZING! Like one guy said here, he has been thinking about ths movie all day. Me too. I was swept away into an awesome fantasy world, for 3 hours of pure magic. It's a delicious feast for the eyes, the ears, and the mind. 2 thumbs up......way up!

[This message has been edited by Warrior728 (edited 12-19-2001).]

[ak]

Is it just me, or did anyone else find that theGaladriel "effect" where she goes all evil, looked awful? That was the lowest special effect in the film.

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
Is it just me, or did anyone else find that theGaladriel "effect" where she goes all evil, looked awful? That was the lowest special effect in the film.</font>

Quite a few people have said the same thing.

[ak]

My biggest problem with the film though, as I had not mentioned in my review, was Peter Jackson's camera movements. They are far too sweeping for their own good, and totally distracted me from the film (They weren't even all that well done in some of the Orthanc shots).

Also - Right at the beginning of the film - Sauron looks like he's just popped out of a really crappy fantasy t.v series, which was a shame.

Anyhow. Those were my only major problems, everything else fitted nicely.

Damned the Balrog for looking like a feeble dog!



[This message has been edited by ak (edited 12-19-2001).]

[Scorchlord]

I agree with you, ak.

The Galadriel morph was stupid. It was a damn cartoon.

Now that I think back on the Balrog, the less impressed by it I am. Most of all, it looked too small. When I see Balrog, I see HUGE. HUGE. I got a 15 foot monster that smoked. Eh.

As for the camera shots, I also agree. I got sick of the helicopter shots after awhile, especially the time when there were a whole bunch in a row. Enough already! We see the landscape!

Also, this has been bugging me: in the movie, was there any real point to going to Lothlorien? They didn't flesh it out at all, other than to say it was a respite from the Orcs. And even then, the only Orcs encountered were Uruk-Hai, at the end. Maybe the DVD will have more.

When i saw Sauron at the beginning, I thought, "Total campiness." I didn't much like him; he was just big, wore armor, and used a wave of energy or something. No sense of evil or malice.

And now, for my ultimate nitpicks (and here are some spoiler warnings, to protect me from more backlash):

1) When Saruman calls down the avalanche that buries the Fellowship, they should have died. That was a great weight of snow that fell from a great distance. No way they survive that.

2) When the cave troll throws Aragorn into the jagged rock wall, Aragorn isn't hurt. That kind of throw would have killed him, king or no king.

[Benny]

I am fucking furious. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif This fucking sucks. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif I had been telling my parents all day to come to the theater about 30-45 minutes early so we could get tix for the 7:00 (and only) show. So OF COURSE the rest of my family dawdles while I frantically get ready. We arrive at 6:45 and it is sold out. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif And I've already seen the other 2 movies showing at that theater anyway. This fucking blows, now I have to wait until tomorrow night to see LOTR! So the countdown begins again...

22 1/2 hours till Middle Earth... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif

[Tuukka]

Hey, I just heard that the film doesn't have "In Dreams" from the soundtrack. You know, the part of "Breaking The Fellowship" where the boy soloist sings rhymes from "The Hobbit". This is actually pretty disappointing to me, since I LOVE that song and I thought it was a stroke of genius from PJ and Shore to end the film with that tune. And it's not even in the film? That's really disappointing. Well, at least I heard about it before seeing the film, now I know not to expect it.

[Scorchlord]

Now that you mention it, you're right.

Did they also take out the shot of Gandalf saying, with gravity, "It must be destroyed!"? For some odd reason, I can't remember it being in the movie.

[daddiefatsacks]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
Read the title of the thread and then bitch at me. Until then, I care not what you say.</font>

You could Include ****SPOILERS**** when you are about to discuss a certain part that may give a crucial point of the movie. I've read other reviews which didn't contained spoilers, and people could still give their thoughts, and you've posted in this thread before you even saw it too, so no need to be a hypocrit saying that people should only come into this forum EXPECTING spoilers, how ignorant.

[urbanlegend23]

I went to a midnight screening, and what can I say? I was bowled over by this flick!

MY REVIEW

I’m a big fan of Peter Jackson. Not only is he from the country I live in, but he has a knack for bringing the most unlikely stories to the screen and making them big and brilliant.

How the sudden anticipation for The Lord of the Rings trilogy suddenly came to be I do not know, but I know that I was sucked in by the fabulous trailers for this movie and the fact that it was filmed in my home town. So, when I gathered up a big bucket of popcorn and set out to see the first New Zealand public screening, I was very worried the movie might be not worth all the hype. Well, I have something to tell all Lord of the Rings fans – this is not disappointing!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring already has the highest audience average on IMDb, and critics have raved about it. I’m just another one of those little critics, sharing my bit, but I’m prepared to rave about just how much of a masterpiece this is.

What really sets The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring apart from the other movies this year is the whole premise. It is really amazing how the storyline that most movie viewers would consider ridiculous seems brilliant and believable. I felt like I was actually there, meeting the monsters and experiencing the adventure as Frodo and his lot embarks on a noble quest.

The performances also really helped this movie. Now, don’t be fooled if you don’t see enough of Liv Tyler or Cate Blanchett – their real place in the story will come in the upcoming next two films. In this movie those two actresses are no more than cameos, but they have big parts in the next few movies, so that is not a flaw at all. Elijah Wood couldn’t have been better cast as Frodo the Hobbit. Elijah plays Frodo warmly and accurately as a hobbit struggling with evil powers beyond his belief. I really felt the heart and the soul of the movie belonged to the wizard Gandalf, played astonishingly well by Sir Ian McKellen.

The whole atmosphere of the film just really got me revved up and sitting there breathing incredibly loudly. The scariness of the dark riders and the fact that you never know where this movie is going to take its next turn is really entertaining.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring has not only proved itself the most anticipated film of all time, but also has the highest audience average ever on IMDb, and this film truly deserves a place on my top 2 of the year 2001. A work of art!

10/10

[The Dude]

HOLY SHIT! Did anyone check out the IMDb for Fellowship of the Rings. 9.7! That's higher than The Godfather. It's already 31 on the top 250 and once it gets more votes willl probably be in the top 20!

[LennysLeggs]

WOW!!!!

Beyond Awesome!!!

I just got back and here are a few of my thoughts on the movie, as well as a couple comments on other reviews made here.

First of all, ALL HAIL PETER JACKSON!!! I will admit this is my first movie of his, great camera work, cinematography, and effects.

In the beginning, Sauron looks EXACTLY like the one and only picture J.R.R. Tolkien ever drew of him. That was the sole inspiration for his looks, not a "campy" sci fi movie. Just looking at that armor gave me the creeps.

Second, When Galadriel transforms at the mirror, this is DEAD ON from the book. It says she grew beautiful and terrible all at the same time, proving she could not take the ring. I thought the effect was great.

And then the Cave Troll and the Balrog. OH MY GOD!! The cave troll looked exquisite, like nothing I had ever seen before. That is probably why some people have thought it looked "fake". I WANT it to look fake!!! Fake means it is new looking, something unexpected. And the Balrog was perfect. Not on fire, MADE of fire. And if you have read any of the other books (specifically the history of middle earth series) you would know that they got him right on, down to his whip of fire.

As for the rest of the movie, I am still digesting it. It was an unbelievable experience, something I will NEVER forget. Even my wife, who absolutely HATES any and all things fantasy REALLY liked it, and can't wait for the next one!!!

365 days to go to The Two Towers!!!!!!

[pofcorn]

Does anyone except me think that the hobbits' houses looked like... well... the teletubies' house?

BTW, the movie was excellent! 1 of the best movie this year!

[TheRock]

The Best Fantasy Film of All Time, but how long will it hold that title with 2 more engaging films due out in the next 2 years. I absolutely loved this film. It has given me faith that epic filmmaking can still be done right. It really has everything. Awesome visuals, great acting, PASSION, a great score, and all the great other technical achievements.

As others have I will nitpick 2 small parts that kind of wore on me: 1) Galadriel looking like that ghost in the beginning of Ghostbusters when Akroyd yells "Get Her" 2)Too many panoramic viewpoints from a helicopter

9.8/10 - Peter Jackson, you deserve all the credit that comes your way!

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Welly, welly, welly, welly, well,.... Ok, I just got back from the 8:00 showing of, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Before I give my psuedo-review (I will reserve final judgement until I have seen it twice) I would like everyone to know 3 things:

1. Yes, I am a fan of Tolkein. Have read the trilogy, and the Hobbit, and the Silmarillion, and the History of Middle-Earth, and I own the Guide to Creatures, Flora, and Fauna, and the Atlas of Middle-Earth,.....yes, im a geek.

2. I have never given a movie a ten, and never will, because in all truthfulness there is no perfect movie, therefore no film deserves a perfect ten.

3. I am a very hard critic of all films, and at times this does hinder my enjoyment of films.

Now, onto my "pseudo-review",...

Before I start, I will just let everyone know that I loved this film. Not the kind of love one feels for a living thing, nor the kind of love one feels for a blanket that they have had since they were born,...it is a love, but different than that. Not worth taking the time to explain, you all know what I mean (or you will after seeing this movie,...at least you should). I went into the movie with low expectations; I had just went over to AICN and checked out the talkback, and saw all these negative (well,...most of them were 8/10 and 9/10, but they all decieded to skip over everything they liked, and focus on what they didnt,...which for the most part were persoanl opinions) and was ready to be sorely dissapointed. I was actually considering not seeing the movie until the hype had calmed down, but after 3 years of checking out every single clip of news, and spy report, and downloading every trailer, and recording everything Lord of the Rings related (I told you,...im a Lord of the Rings geek; the funny thing is I play football, and have alot of friends [who, by the way, were also interested in seeing this film,....after I told them a bit about it,....everyday,...) I was not going to be a happy camper if this turned out bad. Well thank fuck that it was awesome. In all truthfulness, I think anyone that had any quibbles with this movie should see it again, because what I saw was an incredible film. There have been complaints about Merry and Pippin; to me, completely unfounded (everyone in the audience laughed every time they were supposed to,....great audience actually) the pacing; my only problem with the film. Yes some scenes felt rushed, but to be honest, it didnt bother me at all. I was not watching this film as a critic, I was watching it as someone who loves movies, someone not looking for a reason to complain, someone looking to love the film - and I did. The special-effects; all of you who said that they were bad,....what movie were you watching?? Ill let you all know, I hate it when the special-effects of a film are bad, and I could find nothing to complain about here. My biggest problem was Merry and Pippin on the Troll (the Troll was unbelieveable) was the only BAD effect I saw in the movie, and even that was leaps and bounds above the effects in Harry Potter, and TPM`s digital people. All of the other effects were seamless, and great. I wont lie, I cried. My g/f cried (4 times) and a good portion of the audience cried on more than 1,2, or 3 occasions. And for good reason. The acting was perfect. And I do mean perfect. The transformation that happens to both Bilbo and Galadrel; not a problem here. The effect was NOT bad, by any means, I just think that people were expecting everything to be real. Sorry,...no such thing as a real Balrog. But if you want to see an incredible fake one, go see the movie. Music; absoulutly great. ...I dont know. I liked it even more after it was done, and cannot wait to see it again on Saturday. Again, no film is perfect, but thats fine - I wasnt asking for it. All I wanted was an incredible movie expieriance, and thats what I got. This film has a place on my all-time favorite films, and it deserves it. It earned it. I cannot see why anyone would be less than overwhelmed by this film, and maybe after those that werent, see it again - they will be. Maybe. Beat Star Wars?? Hell yes. Beat ESB. Yes, but only by a bit and a half. Were not gonna even go into RotJ and TPM. Anyways, in closing, I wanna say that I genuinly hope that everyone that sees the film, enjoys it. It at least deserves that. (I dont use 1-10 grading scale, I use 1-100, but that review will come after seeing it on Saturday). This film gets a 9/10, and only 4 films (including this one) hold that spot from me. For what my opinion is worth anyways,....and hopefully you take it in high regard, because this film pleased a Tolkein fan,...and that is a very hard thing to do.

[LordKaruku]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Sorry,...no such thing as a real Balrog. But if you want to see an incredible fake one, go see the movie</font>

That's an excellent way to put it-- I think no matter how photorealistic something is nowadays, it's going to look fake to people's eyes simply because they know it's a special effect. I'm betting if you were actually able to find a 10-story creature made of fire and film it, everyone would complain about how laughably fake the CGI was.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

Holy Shit, what a day!!!! I just got back from working at the theatre, and god damn was it busy!! I really didn't expect LOTR to pick up until at least Friday, but boy was I wrong! We had not one, not two, not three, not four, But 5 showtimes of LOTR sellout, and that to me was surprizing. Shit dosen't anybody go to school nowadays?????? But hey thats okay, this film deserves every onze of business it gets, it was a classic in the making, and in my opinion it deserves to win every Oscar in every catorgorey (sp.).. Anyway, I do have one problem with the movie, that problem would be the charecter Sam, IMHO he got to annoying to fast, and what the fuck was up with all that Mr.Frodo bullshit??? I mean Frodo was/is Sam's friend right? Then why does he call his friend Mr.? You don't here me calling my best friend Mr.Ed (no pun intended), oh well I'm going to stop there because although he was annoying, he was also pretty cool at times, and pretty brave, So that problem can easily be over-looked by me. But damn is LOTR a GREAT movie or what????????? I mean shit I dare someone to name a better epic!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ender]

To everyone who ever referred the LOTR as a "piece of shit" over the last few months, I have a few simple recommendations:

1.Open mouth
2.Insert words
3.Chew thoroughly, try not to choke

***BIG SPOILERS AHEAD***

This movie is phenominal. Every one of the performances was fantastic (except for Galadriel, which was just so-so), the setting's where breathtaking, the CGI was excellent (except for the Cave Troll, but hey, one bad effect out of a million ain't bad!), and best of all, there was real emotion to the film. When the Dark Riders have Frodo cornered, my heart was racing. When the Balrog finally came into full view, I was in a sweat. When Boromir died, I was fighting back tears (and I'm not ashamed to admit it), and, in a particularly funny moment, when Aragorn killed the Orc captain, everyone in the theatre cheered. I'm still on sort of an adrenaline high here, so I don't feel up to posting a full review, but I will stop to give Fellowship of the Ring a 10/10 (which I don't do very often). Maybe it's just the fanboy in me, but this movie really was everything I could have hoped for and more.

[Ender]

BTW, there where three chicks dressed like Elves at my viewing. Did anyone else spot fanatics? Just curious.

[AlienClown]

I've seen a few people in this thread question/nitpick why Sam calls Frodo "Mr.Frodo." I haven't seen the movie or read the books, but I read somewhere that Sam is actually Frodo's servant, which is why he refers to him in a formal manner.

[Herbie_Hancock]

I have trouble thinking of many of the important academy awards that this movie doesn't deserve to win. First, I think it deserves best picture, director, cinemetography, and supporting actor for Gandalf. Then, of course, make-up, special effects, and costumes, obviously. The rest of the movies can fight for the scraps, because this is the one movie, the one to rule them all and crank up on the fags at the academy. I think if it doesn't get recognized, there will be a riot at the awards, at least there should be.

[cutman]

************Spoilers**************

Well, I'm too lazy to write a full review, but I just want to say that Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite movie in a long time. After seeing it once, I give it a 9/10. When I see it again, today hopefully, I will probably give it a 10/10.

The things I liked: the opening explanation of the Ring and its origins. This was just cool.

I also loved every scene in Iseguard. Saruman is a badass bad guy, and I can see why the Ents are pissed. The orcs and Uruk-Hai are also very cool.

I thought all of the special effects were amazing. Gollum is going to be great...I loved his eyes...and voice. I had forgotten that he was tortured in Mordor...I actually felt sorry for him.

I cried when Gandalf died. "Fly you fools." Delivered perfectly.

The Balrog (especially his fire whip) was awesome. Smaller than I thought he was going to be, but cool.

Finally, I really loved the music. I have been listening to the music since it was released, and it fits the movie perfectly. To tell you the truth, the ending was EXACTLY the way I thought it was going to be after listening to track 16 over and over again.

In conclusion, the pacing was the only problem I had, and it wasn't even a big problem. I also didn't like the crying baby in my theater. :-)

Going again to see it this afternoon. Let's help this movie make some money...it deserves it.

[A Canadian ThereWolf]

Whoa! LOTR is now at #6 on the IMDB Top 250
Wedged between two all time classics, "Citizen Kane" and "Casblanca"!!!

http://us.imdb.com/top_250_films




[This message has been edited by A Canadian ThereWolf (edited 12-20-2001).]

[Tuukka]

Approval meter at www.rottentomatoes.com (http://www.rottentomatoes.com) is now 97%.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Im telling you, it deserves it. And if ANYONE EVER deserved to get the Best Director Oscar, it is Peter Jackson. He deserves to get it three years in a row. Not only is this the most technically challenging film ever made, but it is an arthouse blockbuster. There is nothing Hollywood about this film. Im glad it is already at #6, and would like it to end up with 99 or 98 at rottentomates.com

[Tuukka]

VARIETY: Lord' rings up $17 mil on Wed. bow
5-day B.O. forecast around $70 mil.

NEW YORK - Despite its three-hour length and dark themes, New Line Cinema's PG-13 epic "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" racked up at least $17.1 million in its Wednesday bow. The figure could rise when additional North American tallies are collected, the company said this morning.
That start puts the pic on track to become the biggest December opening in history, and most industryites foresee a five-day total in the $70 million to $80 million range.

The pic, which opened Tuesday at midnight to sold-out theaters across the country, is playing on 5,700 screens and 3,359 theaters, with a strong average of $5,104 per engagement.

"These numbers well exceed our expectations," said New Line distrib chief David Tuckerman. The studio had estimated a $10 million take per day, or roughly $60 million for the Wednesday-Sunday frame.

With a running time of about two and a half hours, Warner Bros.' "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" grossed $23 million on its Friday, Nov. 16 release and a record $90.3 million for its opening three-day weekend frame.

"Harry" opened on an unprecedented 8,000-plus screens and a record 3,672 theaters.

New Line has consistently claimed "Lord," by comparison, will be a slow build. "It's all about longevity for us," New Line's marketing maven Russell Schwartz told Daily Variety.

- - -

It made less than I expected, but it also had less screens than I expected. It has a slightly better screen average than Harry Potter. The flick is gonna go well north of 200 million.

[Scorchlord]

I'm certainly going at least twice more to see it. On Christmas eve, I'm dragging my family along, and probably again when they put the Two Towers clip up.

[Tuukka]

I have noticed a trend among people who have followed the progress of LOTR for a long time. Many are carrying so much baggage with them when they see the film, that they are not able to enhoy it the first time they see it. Many people are upgrading their grades after seeing it for the second time. Might happen to me as well. 1 hour and 10 minutes...

[ak]

I feel like I must make an important statement here:

When I said that the Balrog looked like that dog out of Ghostbusters I meant the design, not the actual quality of the CGI - Which was very good indeed.

Overall, the CGI looked like CGI, but that's to be expected.

By the way, Gollum looked amazing!

At its least The Fellowship Of The Ring is a masterpiece of cinema, at most it's a masterpiece of cinema.



[This message has been edited by ak (edited 12-20-2001).]

[cutman]

I just want to add one thing. I thought that Liv Tyler as Arwen was AWESOME. I'm sorry that people gave her such a hard time....she definitely deserves SEVERAL apologies.

cutman

[Dehydrator]

I didn't enjoy LOTR quite as much as I would have if they would have stuck to the Book. I already posted a long lament in "what do you think" so here's the short version:

Liv Tyler : awful, has no business at all in the book, has the worst scene in the whole movie ( nazghoul chasing her and frodo by pale daylight )

Sense of humor : completely useless what's with that "don't touch my beard" shit

disnyfication : why not kill the pony at the gates of moria

jar jar binks : pippin & merry

still, I'll have to see it a second time, as TUKKA pointed out, maybe then I'll like it better. for now 6/10

[bskutle]

"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"
First off, my criticisms of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring": Like the book, the events before Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) embarks on his journey move slowly; secondly, the first battle between the Fellowship and the Orcs is filmed and edited rather incoherently, to where geography and people involved are difficult to figure out.

That said, let me put this simply: "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is *bleeping* magnificent, a hot-blooded epic in every sense of the term, filmed with passion and skill by co-writer/director Peter Jackson. The first film of his historic production of J.R.R. Tolkien's landmark literary epic- he filmed the whole trilogy simultaneously over 16 months in his native New Zealand for $300 million (gambled by New Line Cinema), with "The Two Towers" coming out next December, and "The Return of the King" arriving in December 2003- "Fellowship of the Ring" is stunning in scope and production value, literate in dialogue and language (even including some of the Elvish dialect Tolkien pioneered himself for the novel), and powerful in story and emotion. At nearly three hours, it's longer than anything else out there, but "Fellowship" merits and earns that 180 minutes with a palpable sense of excitement, danger, and feeling that'll pin you to your seat.

Before I continue, allow me to clarify my status as a "Lord of the Rings" reader- I'm not one. I made it through the first 50 or so pages earlier this month, but haven't made headway on it since. All the better; I wasn't sitting there thinking what was and wasn't in the movie, and just got sucked into experiencing the story for the first time, letting the story "happen to me" if you will. What a glorious feeling; now I can go back to the source and do the comparison between book and film, maybe even move ahead into "The Two Towers," since "Fellowship" had me itching to see Part Two of Tolkien's epic on film immediately. Like a great trailer, it had me itching for more.

What's it about? For the uninitiated, and put in the simplist form, "Lord of the Rings" is about the battle of Good vs. Evil in a land called Middle Earth. Put in more specific terms, it's about Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit whose cousin Bilbo (Ian Holm)- on his 111th birthday- disappears, leaving Frodo all of his possessions, including a ring of his. It turns out the ring is the One Ring of Power, created by the Dark Lord Sauron so that he could rule over all of Middle Earth. The Ring was taken from him, and eventually fell into the possession of Bilbo. The backstory of the Ring is relayed both in a staggering prologue and by Gandalf the Wizard, played by the great Sir Ian McKellen with authority and humanity (and a great sense of enjoyment for the role). As the current owner of the Ring- whose power to corrupt is unsurpassed, Frodo must embark on a perilous quest to destroy the Ring in the land of Mordor in the fires of Mount Doom from which the Ring was created. To accompany- and protect- Frodo, a Fellowship of nine- consisting of members of the different races- is formed. It includes Frodo, Gandalf, the Hobbits Sam (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan), and Pippen (Billy Boyd), a mysterious ranger called Strider (Viggo Mortensen), the elven archer Legolas (Orlando Bloom), a proud warrior by the name of Boromir (Sean Bean), and the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). Also involved- in various ways- are Arwen the warrior-princess (Liv Tyler makes an impression in her few scenes), Galadriel, the elf-queend of Lothlorien (Cate Blanchett, sterling and beautiful in a brief appearance), and Saruman (Christopher Lee), a wizard every bit as powerful as Gandalf.

And this is just an outline of "Fellowship"; to say more would surely damage the experience of watching the film for yourself, although I've probably said too much already. The story takes hold when Frodo and Sam head out of the Shire- their homeland- and begin to be stalked by the ominous Black Riders (Darth Maul couldn't take these guys), and doesn't let go. Adapted by Jackson, wife Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens, the film moves briskly through the story (by way of a series of expert set pieces and scenes) and introductions of the characters, with ample development of all despite the large cast of vital characters involved. Not since "Gone With the Wind" has such a large-scale story been brought so vividly- and intelligently- to life onscreen with such confidence. It's a great credit to Jackson, whose earlier films- most notably 1994's brilliant "Heavenly Creatures"- showed the work of a visionary imagination to be sure, but hardly a director fit to tackle such a massive undertaking as "Rings," which many thought impossible to do justice to onscreen (a previous attempt- by way of animation- proved unsuccessful). That's where passion comes into play, and where "Rings" will surely become a cinematic milestone alongside the likes of the "Star Wars" and "Godfather" series. This was a labor of love for Jackson, and it shows all through the film. One of the things critics criticized the season's other literary blockbuster- "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"- for was the workman-like direction of Chris Columbus; being faithful to the text, but not really enliving it with more cinematic vision, or "wow," if you will. Jackson's "Fellowship" makes me see what they mean; among this year's blckbusters, only Steven Spielberg's "A.I." comes close to equalling "Fellowship's" sense of wonder and imagination. Jackson's having the time of his life realizing this ultimate dream project (boding well for "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King"), and that infectious feeling enters the viewer, making "The Fellowship of the Ring" powerhouse entertainment.

It surely goes without saying at this point, but the film- from a technical standpoint- is practically perfect. Production designer Grant Major and costume designer Nguka Dickson create a vividly detailed look for Middle Earth- helped in part by artists known for their cover illustrations for editions of the "Rings" novel- and it's many locations- Mordor, Shire, Lothlorien- that could've been derivative, but feel fresh and distinctly believable. For the visual and makeup effects- like turning the not-so-short Holm, Wood, and Astin into diminuative Hobbits (which also involved camera tricks on Jackson's part)- Jackson turned to his own effects workshop, WETA in New Zealand. The work isn't groundbreaking in the vein of Industrial Light & Magic, but it's remarkable nonetheless, especially in the Mines of Moria section of the film and the extraordinary Bridge of Khazad Dum sequence- which pulses with suspense and amazement- and the creation of the Balrog- watch out for that fire whip!- for the digital visual effects, and the Hobbits and Orcs for the makeup effects. The visual effects will surely have my nod for Best Visual Effects, while the makeup- though extraordinary- will have to take a backseat to "Planet of the Apes"- maybe next year and "The Two Towers." If Jackson deserves much of the credit to how smoothly "Fellowship" flows, also give credit to his editor John Gilbert; save for the aforementioned battle scene, the editing is crisp and logical, and doesn't wear thin like in other action-adventures. And the cinematography! Oh my Lord does this movie feel like an epic. Whether it's a sweeping overhead shot of the Fellowship making the journey to Mordor or a character-driven scene like the "round table" meeting to discuss the Ring's fate, this movie is a sight to behold through Andrew Lesnie's lens. The imagery is strong and rich with detail, and the visual style is thrilling to watch, in particular during the action scenes in the movie (by the way, the violence in the film pushes the PG-13 rating to its limits, including a graphic decapitation like those seen in "Braveheart" or "Gladiator").

Fantasy films aren't known for their acting per se (look at "Star Wars"), but that didn't stop Jackson from forming a Fellowship of gifted actors and actresses to bring Tolkien's characters to life. Wood's Frodo is the anchor of the film, and the young talent- who's shined in everything from "Forever Young" to "The Ice Storm"- carries the film with a confidence worthy of comparison to Haley Joel Osment in "A.I.," but conveys the sense of the fear and beguiling courage Frodo gains in his journey with a touching performance. As mentioned before, McKellen is terrific (and Oscar-worthy) as Gandalf, and he has a compelling "partner" in wizardry in Lee's Saruman; Tyler- in her few scenes- is atoned for "Armageddon" in my book, and Blanchett- in her one big scene- commands attention. As far the Hobbits, Holm- as Bilbo- is reliably good, while Astin- from "Rudy"- makes you believe Sam's devotion to friend Frodo, and Boyd and Monoghan- and Pippen and Merry, respectively- make a fun pair of comic relief, so long as they don't overdo it. Bloom- as Legolas- and Rhys-Davies- as Gimli- are given the smallest to do among the Fellowship, and are barely even worth mentioning (ditto "The Matrix's" Hugo Weaving as Elrond), as they're overshadowed by the rich, surprising depth given to Aragorn (AKA the Strider) and Boromir by Mortensen and Bean, respectively. Mortensen keeps Aragorn's past mysterious, while Bean does the same with Boromir's intentions, while both provide some of the film's most heroic moments in battle (both do pretty well for themselves in swordplay and combat). Overall, a strong cast effort all around; no lightweights.

For composing duties, Jackson tapped veteran composer Howard Shore, and while he's known more for dark, moody scores like "The Silence of the Lambs," "Se7en," "The Cell," and just about every David Cronenberg film ever, he hits a career peak with his exhilarating score for "Fellowship." Now as some of you may know, in the '80s composer Johan De Meij wrote a five-movement symphony ("Tone Poem," more appropriately) inspired by characters, places, and events in Tolkien's epic (Gandalf, Lothlorien, Gollum, The Mines of Moria and The Bridge of Khazad Dum, and- most memorably- the Hobbits). Those expecting quotations of that exquisite musical work will be solely disappointed, but trust me when I say Shore has crafted a symphony every bit as evocative and powerful as De Meij's; I've been listening to it for close to a month, and it's never worn thin for me. With beautiful themes, thundering brass, brilliant strings, sinuous motifs for the Dark Riders and Orcs by way of choral voices, and otherworldly music for the more ethereal passages in the film, Shore paves the way for a cinematic symphony unlike any since "Star Wars." Not since James Horner and "Titanic" has a score been such a sure thing for an Oscar. It even has a ballad like "Titanic" in the haunting "May It Be" by Enya. It's one of the best songs of not just this sorry movie year, but of the past 5-10 years as well, and minus the pop sensibility and grating sentimentality of Celine Dion's smash from "Titanic," it's likely to have more staying power.

Well, I'm out. What else can I say? I came, I saw, I loved almost completely (see my quibbles at the top). It's an event epic worthy of comparison to "Star Wars" (which- granted- will still remain my favorite movie series of all-time) and the "Indiana Jones" movies. Like those classics, "Fellowship" created in me a sense of wonder that only the great ones do. It threatens to convolute my Top 20 Favorite films of all-time, as well as my Best Films of all-time. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" is an extraordinary story- at least, from what I can tell by this film and the enthusiasm of long-time fans, and Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring" is a powerful cinematic telling of that story, and I can't wait for next December and "The Two Towers." That really says it all, doesn't it?

Grade for "The Fellowship of the Ring"- A+

[Scorchlord]

I don't think Merry and Pippin were NEARLY as bad as Jar Jar Binks.

And to kill Bill the Pony at the gates of Moria screams of a person who hasn't read the books. Sam would have gone apeshit.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Not to mention it would be totally pointless.

Aragorn: Hey guys, who wants to help me kill the pony??

Everyone else: *stares blankly*

.....that would be about it. Anyways, Merry and Pippin were great. I care not what anyone else thinks about this film; I just feel bad that you were so worried about everything other than how much you were gonna enjoy the film. Go looking for flaws and youll find them,...and in some cases, flaws are not a bad thing.

[BigHoosfan]

I didn't like the movie. I give it maybe a 4/10.

Way, way too long.

I'll set myself up. I'm 28 and it's been around 20 years since I read the books and not a SciFi fan.

Half through it, I was bored and just waiting for it to end. If I had been by myself, I would've left.

Some people do carry this stuff too far. I go to another site and talk a little about movies. They think I'm nuts for criticizing this movie.

Oh, Well, the movies I really want to see like A Beautiful Mind and Black Hawk Down are finally close to coming out.

[Tuukka]

I just saw the film and I can't decide between 8 and 9. I think I give it 8.5 until I see it again. 80-90% of the film was great and I enjoyed it enourmously. Then there was 10-20% of stuff that didn't work so well. All in all a good term for this film is a "flawed masterpiece". When it's good, it's amazingly good, but there are quite a few flaws that can't go unnoticed. Anyway, it was a great film experience and I will write a longer review once I have seen the film for a second time.

[TheRock]

sorry Big that you didn't like it. I guess one guy's Star Wars is another guy's Wing Commander. I personally thought the film was not long enough but I also know we'll get some more when the director's cut dvd comes out because there were scenes in the trailers not in the movies(gift giving, swan boat, elves killing the remaining orcs coming out of Moria).

Just some side notes on other things I loved(seen it a second time):

1)Sauron's castle was frickin amazing and when the Nazgul come riding out for the first time.....WOW!
2)The Nazgul are the best looking villains I've seen since Darth Vader....those guys are badass.
3)That scene where Aragorn tells Frodo to run and he turns around in slow motion only to see hundreds of orcs behind him
4)When Boromir blows his horn, and Aragorn says "Boromir", the camera then follows down the hill from an aerial view and never stops....what an amazing shot!

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

I cant say that I agree with Tukkaka in there being more than one "flaw". The only flaw I came across (and it didnt bother me because it was necessary) was the pacing. I can more than easily let that go, because frankly, I didnt even notice it until it was over and I wanted more. As for everything else, they are personal opinions, and I understand that, so I see no other problems.

[Puck Bond]

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 10/10...

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is the most dazzling, majestic and beautiful epic I have seen in a long time! Let me say that I am not a fan-boy have never read the books(but I asked for them for Christmas). However, I am a movie fan first and this film is one of the reasons I love movies. The opening prologue was good for the uninitiated and it helped me out...plus I read alot of reviews before seeing it so I knew what to expect going in...my anticipation was sky high...and it didn't dissapoint in fact far exceeded my expectations...The film is an amazing, awesome, dizzying sword and sorcery epic, with depth, true emotion and passion rarely seen in major Hollywood films. Credit Peter Jackson and his team for this soon to be destined classic!
The cast is excellent, and probably perfect in almost every role. Ian McKellan is excellent as Gandalf...my heart sank when he "fell". Elijah Wood is also very good as Frodo and think holds his own excellently. Viggo Mortensen is very good as Aragorn aka Strider. In fact I had no fault with any of the performances...also standouts were Sean Bean, Christopher Lee, Sean Astin and Ian Holm.
The cinematography is exquisitly majestic...from The Shire, Mordor, Rivendell, the Mines of Moria, Isengaard and so on. The set design, art direction and costumes were all amazing...I just loved Gandalf's hat. The music score is extremely good, it enhances the film in so many ways but never upstages it. I'm not a big efficionado of CGI effects and so on, but I thought most of them worked very well...This film desrves to be nominated for many Oscars and I hope it will win many of them...the audience I saw it with was excellent...people were riveted to their seats there was applause twice!! once when the head of The Uruk-Hai gets his head lopped off and once at the end. Through most of the second half of the film I sat with tears in my eyes...there is a part where a tear runs down Frodo's cheak after he gets out of the Mines of Moria, a tear ran down mine at the exact same moment...it flawed me.(Not ashamed to say any of this)...the running time did not feel like 3 hours and it flew by...by the end I felt like the adventure had only just began...I was dieing to see more...I can't wait for The Two Towers...in the end FOTR is a brilliant, awesome epic film going experience...and without a doubt the best film I've seen this year.

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
This film gets a 9/10, and only 4 films (including this one) hold that spot from me. For what my opinion is worth anyways,....and hopefully you take it in high regard, because this film pleased a Tolkein fan,...and that is a very hard thing to do.</font>

Dumb-Fokker-**, I'm very proud of you. I was almost sure you'd give this film a 10/10 because you're like.....the biggest fan I've ever met (OK we didn't meet but you get the point). I was sure this'd be like your favorite movie of all-time. Thats all.

[Scorchlord]

One post I just read reminded me of a personal gripe.

The horn of Gondor sounded like a damn tugboat. When it's first heard, my immediate reaction was, "Is a ship coming into harbor?" I espected more.

[Benny]

I just got home from Fellowship about 10 minutes ago, and damn was I impressed. I'm too tired to write a full review now, but I must say it is without a doubt THE movie of the 2001 holiday season, and my 2nd favorite of the year. And of course, Ian McKellen is great as are all the rest of the actors/actresses in the film. Sure it was bit long, but how else would you be able to translate a book of that great magnitude into a movie! Fantastic job, can't wait for The 2 Towers! 10/10

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, thank you Horror. I am a very big fan of Tolkein, but I never pretended to myself that this film would be perfect. No film is perfect, and like all other films, this one has flaw[s] - but just one really. If they had only spent more time here and there, this film still wouldnt have gotten a 10 (no film will) but it would have ranked higher than #3 on my list of favorite films. When the DVD comes out, and all 3 films are out, I am positive that this film will be my favorite. And for the record, my top 3 films are,...

3. Fellowship of the Ring

2. Jaws

1. Jurassic Park - now wait, before you throw out all credibility, you have to know some things. I LOVED dinosaurs when I was a kid. Had a ton of toys, book, movies, everything. I was 8 when this movie came out, and my mom saw how much I like it, and took me to see it 4 times subsequentially. I would sit in the living room, and watch the commercial that I recorded 10 times in a row, than I would watch the special-effects making-of show that I recorded. The special-effects brought to life, something I thought I would never see, and I loved this film. Granted I dont like it as much anymore, I still remember the feeling it gave me seeing it the first time, and that feeling is something that you can only get when your young,...and thats why Jurassic Park will never be replaced. Jaws on the other hand will be moved back once I get the DVD with an hour of additional footage for Lord of the Rings. Im telling you people. See this movie again, forget the hype, and watch it just to watch a great film - because that truly is, what this film is.

By the way, what did you think of it Horror Whore??

[sleekproductions]

i am speechless

10/10

Best movie of all time

[FlickJunkie]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
No film is perfect, and like all other films, this one has flaw[s] - but just one really. If they had only spent more time here and there, this film still wouldnt have gotten a 10 (no film will) but it would have ranked higher than #3 on my list of favorite films.</font>

That's still sad Dumb-Fokker-** that no film will ever get a 10/10 from you. There are several films I'd give a 10/10 because I personally cannot find anything wrong with them. And they are extremely entertaining as well as well-written, directed and acted. (e.i. American Beauty and The Sixth Sense, IMHO) I can't find anything wrong with them. I mean sure films are likely to have flaws like a continuity error where something will be somewhere in one shot and then moves some in the next. Those are expected. But, I, like most people can over-look shit like that in films. (of course in the two films I've mentioned I haven't found any of those and I've seen them so many times I've lost count). I rate films on their entertainment value first. Then go other aspects of films. Because if it doesn't entertain me then that movie is not doing it's sole-purpose. I think if a film is extremely entertaining then fuck it they are most likely to be well written, directed, etc. sowhy not give it a 10/10.

I just think that's kinda, I dunno, I guess sad is all....

[Ender]

Okay, now that I've had a day to think it over and let my adrenaline work down, I can be a little more lucid about this one. I still give it a 10, but there are a few more things I can quibble about.

STUFF I LIKED:
Well, actually, I liked almost everything, so this is just a partial list, but anyhow.

1. Ian McKellan. I liked almost every performance in this movie, but he was definitely the standout.
2. Sean Bean. Boromir is a pretty small part, but I thought he was very impressive, particularly in the movie's finale. Very emotional speach there at the end.
3. The directing. Peter Jackson is the man, and if nothing else, LOTR deserves an oscar for Best Director.
4. Liv Tyler. She's catching a lot of crap from everybody, but she was actually one of my favorite parts of the movie.
5. The Dark Riders. Scary as shit.
6. Merry and Pippin. No, they're not the Jar Jar Binks of this movie. Unlike Jar Jar, these two are actually funny, and actually have a number of serious moments that ring true (ignore the pun please).

WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE:
A small list, but worth noting.

1.Galadriel, or more specifically, Cate Blanchett. Something about her entire performance bothered me. Seemed like she was trying too hard, if that makes any sense? That lousy CGI moment didn't help her either, but I guess that wasn't her fault.
2. The Cave Troll. I loved 99% of the movie's CGI, but this is where it crapped out. The closeups where fine, but whenever he was fighting he looked too fluid and too loose of an effect.
3. The scene crossing the snowy mountains (the name of the place escapes me right now). It just didn't seem realistic. The freezing temperatures and avalanche would most likely have killed everyone.
4. The length. No, I don't think three hours is too long. In fact, I would have added about 30 minutes onto the begining, to slow down the seemingly rushed pace of the trip to Rivendell.

That's about all that springs to mind...

Overall, still one of the best movies this year, second only to Memento IMHO. If we want to talk academy awards, I'm thinking nominations somewhere in the neighborhood of:

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Supporting Actor, Ian McKellan
A whole assload of technical awards.

[Tuukka]

I write a short review for the movie, even if I have to see it for a second time to form a definite opinion.

SCRIPT:

A very good adaptation. I have read the books three times, but the last time was 10 years ago. I don't remember all the details and I wasn't constantly comparing the movie to the book. The book is remarkably difficult to translate to the screen, but I appreciated 95% of the choices that had been mande. The storyline and characterazations were very well executed. The semi-Shakespearian dialogue probably seems distracting and pretentions to some, but I appreciated the beautiful poetic quality of it and there were some excellent, snappy one-liners. The goofy comic relief once in a while (mainly from Merry and Pippin) worked for me and it made a nice contrast to the darker scenes of the film.

ACTING:

Mostly great, even the worst performances were pretty good (Blanchett, Tyler and Davis). The highlight of the cast was the awesome Ian McKellen. Elijah Wood, Ian Holm and Christopher Lee also made an impression. Many people seem to have problems with Cate Blanchett. Her performance was good, but PJ's direction was mis-guided, he made Galadriel too theatrical and overblown. Cate simply acted according to PJ's instructions and did a fine job.

DIRECTING:

Lot's of awesome stuff from PJ. He handles the drama very well most of the time, pulls great performances out of the cast and has a terrific visual sense. Editing was choppy in some action scenes and PJ doesn't really know how to do action like Spielberg or Cameron, but he did a good job. Especially Moria scenes rock. The film had many, many amazingly good scenes directorially, but some were also obviously mis-guided, like the Galadriel's mirror scene (probably the worst scene in the film, althought it wasn't bad). I thougth that the pacing was just perfect, the film was never boring and it was a nice balance of leisurely moments and high-tension stuff. There is no sense of passage of time similar to books, but this is a film, not a book. In books Gandalf is away from the Shire for years, but in film it feels like couple of days. The journey after Frodo leaves Shire takes around six months in the book, but in film it feels like a couple of weeks. But this is a film, not a book. It stands on it's own and the sense of travelling long distances is well executed.

VISUALS:

Amazing. Simply amazing. The film blow me away several times with it's visual power. Great sets and production design, wonderful locations. There are breathtaking, long, sweeping shots over the scenery that really transport you to Middle-Earth. I loved the transformation of Isengard and I thought the SFX in those CGI shots was amazing. If you know the story of The Two Towers you realize that those long shots were not unnecessary at all, they are establishing the nature vs. machinery theme that is important in the story of Saruman. Action scenes are shot in a highly energetic style that admittedly felt a bit choppy at times. It would have been better with more clarity. The drama scenes have been shot with a suitably low-key approach most of the time and some of the are masterfully shot. I dig the way how PJ uses the whole repertoire of film grammary to empower the drama. He misses his mark a few times (like the transformation of Galadriel and the over-use of diffuse filter in the elf scenes), but overall it's a hugely impressive ride.

MUSIC:

Great soundtrack. Shore's score knows how to be epic and scary, yet it also knows how to be subtle and happy. Music empowers the drama in a very effective way and there are lot's of great individual tunes.

SFX:

Mostly amazing. The shrinking of the hobbits is done 99% perfectly and some of the shrinking shots were amazingly complicated and sophisticated. Especilly the shots with Bilbo and Gandalf at Bag End when there are 30 seconds long travelling shots with Bilbo walking aroung Gandalf, handing him objects, both interacting with the same enviroment, etc. Great stuff.

Also CGI locations were awesome. I got goosebumps from Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Isengard, Lothlorien, Moria, Rivendell... You name it. These are most sophisticated, complicated CGI environments I have ever seem and I loved the sweeping shots over the places. It really makes you feel that the place is for real instead of being just a matte background. Shire was totally awesome as well, but that was mostly a real creation with only some matte work included.

Creatures were looked a bit CGI most of the time, but they were still very high-quality. The big monsters were moving too fast, as usual. When do SFX makers understand that a big creature has to give an illusion of weight? The cave troll was a lot of fun and it had a cool presence, but it was moving all too fast. Balrog was cool as well, but shares the same problem. Mind you, I really dig all the CGI characters in the film, but they don't reach the same quality as the dinosaurs of JP movies.

All in all the flick has some of the best CGI I have ever seen. I think it's obviously better than Phantom Menace in this sense, but doesn't achieve the level of Pearl Harbour and A.I, which probably have the best effects ever.

EDITING:

Most of the film is edited with great care and the pacing is dead-on, but action is badly handled at times. I wonder if they were trying to hide the fact that swordfighting wasn't really that good, or if they were trying to hide the violent nature of the scenes in order to get PG-13. Or maybe PJ just doesn't know how to cut action. I understand that he aims for the confusing feel of being in a battle yourself, but you can achieve both confusingness and clarity in a same scene (just watch Saving Private Ryan). Anyway, the build-ups and pay-offs are effectively handled.

EMOTIONAL CONTENT:

There are moments of pure joy in the Shire and some really suspensful high-tension stuff in Moria. I was on the edge of my seat several times. I liked all the characters and the "death" of Gandalf was an emotional moment. Having said that, I never became fully obsessed with the film emotionally. It worked my emotions more than most films, but it didn't really grab me by heart. Then again, the sequels were more involving as books, so we can expect the same from films. I think that melodrama fits LOTR, but there were occasional moments when I felt that PJ was trying too hard to manipulate my emotions and the drama felt forced because of it. But in overall it worked for me.

FINAL VERDICT:

A great movie, that has to been again before I can decide between 8/10 and 9/10. I was wise enough to kill all the expectations before seeing the film, but I know that I still carried a lot of baggage with me. I have been following the making of these films all too closely and I would have with no doubt enjoyed this movie more with no previous knowledge of it.

GRADE SO FAR: 8.5.



[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-21-2001).]

[Tuukka]

Oh, and just for the record: FOTR belongs to my top 30 movies of all time. In the adventure movie genre the only Star Wars film that is close to same level is A New Hope. ESB, ROTK and PM don't come even close. I think that after repeated viewings I will appreciate FOTR more than ANH.

But in general I have to admit that Raiders Of The Lost Ark (9/10) is a more coherent film as a whole. Then again, it's also less ambitious and doesn't have the sense of wonder and emotional attachement that FOTR has. ROTLA is more "perfect", but it also aims lower and therefore it's more difficult for the more ambitious LOTR to reach that perfection.

[Claymore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
SFX:

Mostly amazing. The shrinking of the hobbits is done 99% perfectly and some of the shrinking shots were amazingly complicated and sophisticated. Especilly the shots with Bilbo and Gandalf at Bag End when there are 30 seconds long travelling shots with Bilbo walking aroung Gandalf, handing him objects, both interacting with the same enviroment, etc. Great stuff.

Also CGI locations were awesome. I got goosebumps from Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Isengard, Lothlorien, Moria, Rivendell... You name it. These are most sophisticated, complicated CGI environments I have ever seem and I loved the sweeping shots over the places. It really makes you feel that the place is for real instead of being just a matte background. Shire was totally awesome as well, but that was mostly a real creation with only some matte work included.
</font>

I disagree with the hobbit shrinking. I was getting dizzy trying to decide if the hobbits were 3' or 5' tall, and I think it would have been much better if they'd actually used midgets (c.f. Willow). I had thought the perspective photography was innovative, and that it would be brilliant, but I was very disappointed.

As for locations: Rivendell looked rather fake, as did some other locations. For example, in the very first look we get of Rivendell, the waterfall was stationary. Look at Naboo, in the Phantom Menace, and LOTR comes off significantly worse.

And why did the orcs look like zombies?

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Claymore:
I disagree with the hobbit shrinking. I was getting dizzy trying to decide if the hobbits were 3' or 5' tall, and I think it would have been much better if they'd actually used midgets (c.f. Willow). I had thought the perspective photography was innovative, and that it would be brilliant, but I was very disappointed.

As for locations: Rivendell looked rather fake, as did some other locations. For example, in the very first look we get of Rivendell, the waterfall was stationary. Look at Naboo, in the Phantom Menace, and LOTR comes off significantly worse.

And why did the orcs look like zombies?</font>

Are you sure about the static waterfall...? I mean it's a VERY EASY thing to do to make it move, and I doubt that nobody in the post-production process noticed that they have static waterfalls in Rivendell.

The shrinking of Hobbits felt weird at first, but after the first 20 minutes it felt perfectly natural to me. Are you sure that you were just refusing to "believe" in the effect? I can't recall any flaws, but if you can point certain shots to me, I will pay attention to them once I see the film again.

As for fakey locations... Yes, they have an unreal feeling to them at times. But this doesn't matter to me. The amount of detail was enourmous, the lighting was atmospheric, the set design mainly great. For example Phantom Menace never felt real to me. It was all just a big soundstage with CGI backgrounds. You might argue that technically the SFX in Phantom Menace was better (maybe it was, I'm not 3D animator) but the vision and atmosphere was better in FOTR. You know how I just LOVE all the traditional matte paintings in old SFX movies. They have that unreal feeling to them, but at the same time they look gorgeus. This is true with FOTR as well.

Maybe I look to SFX more from artistical point of view than from technical point of view. You have said that Cave Troll was crap because it was obviousl CGI. I say Cave Troll was great because it had character, it had cool design and it interacted well with it's environment.

In the end the question is how much you are willing to do some suspension of disbelief. I don't mind flaws in SFX, as long as the overall vision is strong. I find flaws in script, acting and directing far more fatal.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-21-2001).]

[Antwort]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Claymore:
I disagree with the hobbit shrinking. I was getting dizzy trying to decide if the hobbits were 3' or 5' tall, and I think it would have been much better if they'd actually used midgets (c.f. Willow). I had thought the perspective photography was innovative, and that it would be brilliant, but I was very disappointed.

As for locations: Rivendell looked rather fake, as did some other locations. For example, in the very first look we get of Rivendell, the waterfall was stationary. Look at Naboo, in the Phantom Menace, and LOTR comes off significantly worse.

And why did the orcs look like zombies?</font>


Are you kidding? The Hobbit shrinking was great, and Rivendell was very well done. People are so picky about movie that they have to find something wrong with it (no matter how dumb it may seem) and when they can't find something wrong they make something up.


[This message has been edited by Antwort (edited 12-21-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Antwort (edited 12-21-2001).]

[Tuukka]

I hope that PJ makes the action a bit more coherent in the sequels. FOTR has a stand-out action sequence starting with the appearance of Cave Troll and ending with Balrog. That 15 minute scene had moments of confusion, but also moments of clarity. The tension was nail-biting tense and executed to almost perfection. Especially the stairway scene impressed me greatly.

More stuff like that PJ, please... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/tongue.gif

[Claymore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Are you sure about the static waterfall...? I mean it's a VERY EASY thing to do to make it move, and I doubt that nobody in the post-production process noticed that they have static waterfalls in Rivendell.</font>

It was for a brief moment only - I might have thought I had missed something, except that my fiancee and her father (both film buffs way more knowledgable than me) oticed too. The scene didn't look right - I think the matte was a little faded compared to the starkly clear foreground, and there were subtle things missing - spray from the waterfalls, for example.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The shrinking of Hobbits felt weird at first, but after the first 20 minutes it felt perfectly natural to me. Are you sure that you were just refusing to "believe" in the effect? I can't recall any flaws, but if you can point certain shots to me, I will pay attention to them once I see the film again.</font>

The effect did get better as the movie went on, but after the scenes of Gandalf in Bilbo's house, I was very attuned to changes in height.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for fakey locations... Yes, they have an unreal feeling to them at times. But this doesn't matter to me. The amount of detail was enourmous, the lighting was atmospheric, the set design mainly great. For example Phantom Menace never felt real to me. It was all just a big soundstage with CGI backgrounds. You might argue that technically the SFX in Phantom Menace was better (maybe it was, I'm not 3D animator) but the vision and atmosphere was better in FOTR. You know how I just LOVE all the traditional matte paintings in old SFX movies. They have that unreal feeling to them, but at the same time they look gorgeus. This is true with FOTR as well.</font>

I agree, the atmosphere was brilliant, especially the Shire and Bree. Rivendell was my big problem - it didn't feel real for me.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Maybe I look to SFX more from artistical point of view than from technical point of view. You have said that Cave Troll was crap because it was obviousl CGI. I say Cave Troll was great because it had character, it had cool design and it interacted well with it's environment.</font>

Well, yes...except that having seen Harry Potter so recently, and Shrek on DVD, I think the cave troll suffered by comparison. There were glitches in the Harry Potter troll, but it felt more real - it had a much better impression of mass.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In the end the question is how much you are willing to do some suspension of disbelief. I don't mind flaws in SFX, as long as the overall vision is strong. I find flaws in script, acting and directing far more fatal.</font>

I had some problems there too - the movie, as a whole, was good, but given the budget and the expectations, it should have been perfect. I found myself occasionally going "What were they *thinking*!?" I believe that they should have chosen actors who looked right up front, instead of choosing actors who could act, and hoping everyone would accept their out-of-place looks.

[Tuukka]

"I had some problems there too - the movie, as a whole, was good, but given the budget and the expectations, it should have been perfect. I found myself occasionally going "What were they *thinking*!?" I believe that they should have chosen actors who looked right up front, instead of choosing actors who could act, and hoping everyone would accept their out-of-place looks."

I didn't have a problem with that. I thought everyone LOOKED just perfect and acting ranged from adequate to great. Maybe your vision of the characters is just different and the film didn't meet *your* interpretation of the book.

I'm seeing the film again in a few days and maybe I will find out more errors in the shrinking effect, but I doubt it. When Bilbo and Gandalf meet the effect was really distracting, but I didn't spot any flaws. It was distracting simply because my brains refused to believe what my eyes saw. I know that Ian Holm is not 4ft high, so it felt really weird.

I also have some problems with the film, but it's all more or less nit-picking. Here are some:

1. The overuse of diffuse filter in elf scenes was a kind of cheap and unsophisticated visual solution.

2. The whole Lothlorien segment seemed pretty unnecessary for the flow of the film. Easily the worst segment of the film, despite the awesome sets and cool music.

3. The mirror scene especially felt forced and the morphing effect looked stupid and ugly. Cate Blanchett acted in an overly theatrical way.

4. There was an overuse of "wordless dialogue" between characters in Lothlorien.

5. Action was often choppily edited.

6. The big CGI creatures didn't have a sense of weight to them.

7. At the bridge of Khazam-Dum Gandalf holds on the bridge for 20 seconds before he falls. Why nobody goes to help him? Is the great wizard too weak to raise himself? The scene would have been better if the Balrog's whip would have drawn Gandalf to abyss, or if the bridge would have just collapsed.

8. The montage showing Uruk-Hai travelling to Amon Hen felt a bit clumsy.

9. The morphing effect of Bilbo was too overblown.

10. Some of the jokes with Merry and Pippin fell flat.

11. Some of the sentimentality felt forced. PJ occasionally held scenes longer than he should have. For example the "drowning" of Sam or the "death" of Frodo in Moria.

...Nothing else comes to mind right now. And none of those things can be considered as a major flaw.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

I have a very stupid question for any LOTR fan, but before I ask this question I want you to remember that I have never read the books, I never paid attention to LOTR before I saw it, and I don't completely understand the whole ring factor(although I do know a bit more after seeing it). With that said here is my very stupid question:

What does the whole One Ring To Rule Them All mean? Is it one ring to rule all other rings? Or is it one ring to rule over the fellowship that was formed in FOTR?


- I ask this question because I am curious to know, I mean sure the ring ruled all other rings, but it also somehow broke the fellowship in a way, made some of members greedy and uninterested in anything but the ring, so what does One Ring To Rule Them All mean?????????????

[Claymore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
I didn't have a problem with that. I thought everyone LOOKED just perfect and acting ranged from adequate to great. Maybe your vision of the characters is just different and the film didn't meet *your* interpretation of the book.</font>

Quite possibly. These are artistic differences, after all. My specific problems are:
Frodo looked weak and childish. In the book, he was not only middle-aged, he was the strength of the fellowship, the one who could resist the power of the ring when no-one else could. In the movie, he's a nervous and terrified child. Something that bothered me terribly - Elijah Woods seems to have a very thick neck, which I gound very odd. The elves were a completely different species, described as tall, beautiful, with pointed ears, and sharp features. In the movie, however, they all looked human, with blonde wigs, with the exception of Legolas, who looked dead right. Galadriel, in particular, was about as far from an elf as you could get. I believe Jackson should have strongly emphasized their "otherworldlyness" by perhaps giving them silvery hair and perhaps a silvery - or different - skin tone. Arwen was cute, but looked like a human with stick-on ears, and when they meet the 3 elves at arrowpoint near Lorien, the middle one looks a lot like an English lager lout, not an elf at all.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'm seeing the film again in a few days and maybe I will find out more errors in the shrinking effect, but I doubt it. When Bilbo and Gandalf meet the effect was really distracting, but I didn't spot any flaws. It was distracting simply because my brains refused to believe what my eyes saw. I know that Ian Holm is not 4ft high, so it felt really weird.</font>

Look at it again and let me know how it feels. I'll be seeing it again - maybe I'll find it less distracting.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1. The overuse of diffuse filter in elf scenes was a kind of cheap and unsophisticated visual solution.</font>

I must admit, I missed that.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3. The mirror scene especially felt forced and the morphing effect looked stupid and ugly. Cate Blanchett acted in an overly theatrical way.</font>

No kidding. Departure from the book there too - elves - and Galadriel in particular - were unaffected by the powers of the ring, and there's not reason for her to have wanted it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">5. Action was often choppily edited.</font>

Yep.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">6. The big CGI creatures didn't have a sense of weight to them.</font>

Very obvious. That, fortunately, is one of the things they'll have time to fix up for the next movie.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">7. At the bridge of Khazam-Dum Gandalf holds on the bridge for 20 seconds before he falls. Why nobody goes to help him? Is the great wizard too weak to raise himself? The scene would have been better if the Balrog's whip would have drawn Gandalf to abyss, or if the bridge would have just collapsed.</font>

I agree with you - I couldn't understand why Strider didn't dash forward.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">8. The montage showing Uruk-Hai travelling to Amon Hen felt a bit clumsy.</font>

Did you find that the uruk-hai leader looked a lot like Darth Maul?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">9. The morphing effect of Bilbo was too overblown.</font>

It was a bit of a shock though!

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">10. Some of the jokes with Merry and Pippin fell flat.</font>

Relatives of Jar-Jar Binks?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">11. Some of the sentimentality felt forced. PJ occasionally held scenes longer than he should have. For example the "drowning" of Sam or the "death" of Frodo in Moria.</font>

I agree with you, though it didn't bother me much. I wondered what the point of Bill the pony was. I think that, like the book, they should have had Sam shown caring for Bill, then have it nibbled by the monster in the lake (which was a little overdone, I might add).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...Nothing else comes to mind right now. And none of those things can be considered as a major flaw.</font>

No, I don't think there were MAJOR flaws - just a bunch of irritating little ones.

[Tuukka]

Since it's been 10 years since I have read the book, I might remember the book incorrectly. But Elijah was dead-on Frodo to me. He looks like I always imagined Frodo to be. Frodo was around 40's in books, but since hobbits grow old slower than humans, he should look to be in his early 20's, like Elijah. A 40 year old hobbit was considered to be young. The strenght of Frodo was always inner strenght to me, and the script and Elijah nailed that. He is physically weak in the books and in the movie (Sam was the only thing that prevented Gollum from killing Frodo), but he has courage. The scene at Amon Hen in the end when Frodo decides to leave the others captured the essence of Frodo beautifully. He cries when he leaves the shore with his boat, but he is determined to fulfill his task, no matter how scared and sad he is. He showed greater courage than anyone else in the film.

As for elves, I have to disagree with you. In fact the elves were a bit too otherwordly for my taste, so thank God they didn't have any silver hair or weird skin. They would have turned into kitchy creatures, and even now it was a close call. So my interpretation of them is obviously a lot more human-like than your interpretation.

[Ender]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dicaprio_travolta_man:

What does the whole One Ring To Rule Them All mean? Is it one ring to rule all other rings? Or is it one ring to rule over the fellowship that was formed in FOTR?
</font>

It was One ring to rule all the other rings, and also to rule over the entire world (or so I've always believed). The ring has unimaginable power, enough to render a person all but invincible, but only Sauron can use it without going mad and being corrupted by it.

[Claymore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Since it's been 10 years since I have read the book, I might remember the book incorrectly. But Elijah was dead-on Frodo to me. He looks like I always imagined Frodo to be. Frodo was around 40's in books, but since hobbits grow old slower than humans, he should look to be in his early 20's, like Elijah. A 40 year old hobbit was considered to be young. The strenght of Frodo was always inner strenght to me, and the script and Elijah nailed that. He is physically weak in the books and in the movie (Sam was the only thing that prevented Gollum from killing Frodo), but he has courage. The scene at Amon Hen in the end when Frodo decides to leave the others captured the essence of Frodo beautifully. He cries when he leaves the shore with his boat, but he is determined to fulfill his task, no matter how scared and sad he is. He showed greater courage than anyone else in the film.</font>

Fair enough - except that I think Elijah looks about 13, not 20...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for elves, I have to disagree with you. In fact the elves were a bit too otherwordly for my taste, so thank God they didn't have any silver hair or weird skin. They would have turned into kitchy creatures, and even now it was a close call. So my interpretation of them is obviously a lot more human-like than your interpretation.</font>

So what was the point of having elves at all? Why not just have humans? (Unless, of course, you decided to use that Tolkien book as a source for the movie).

[Tuukka]

Well, I think the film made fairly clear the difference between elves and men, just like it made clear the difference between men and hobbits. The difference was there, and I don't think it should have been more contrasted.

[Claymore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Well, I think the film made fairly clear the difference between elves and men, </font>

It did indeed - the elves had plastic pointy ears.

[Scorchlord]

That's being cynical. I never even noticed the Elvish ears. I noticed that some of them needed to shave soon http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif, but not the ears. You got the distinct impression that the Elves were of the light simply because of the glowing shine. When we see our first elf - Arwen - she has the bright aura around her.

[ak]

Spoilers: When Sam was drowning nearer the end of the film, I was just waiting to see a ghostly impression of Gollum swim past him, with an evil grin or something. Only a small suggestion would have been needed - I would have loved that (Might have confused people though).

My MAJOR problems with the film: And I must say it is very easy to criticise such a film because of its magnitude, but these, I feel, are important. Tuukka also shared some of my concerns.

1 - Filters - This really bugged me, I think Jackson was trying to portray the different moods of different places in Middle Earth, but it was distracting and tended to look like a pop-video would. They were generally attractive though.

2 - CGI - Well, it was good, but nothing at all amazing for the most part. I though Godzilla from the recent Hollywood film looked far superior than both the Balrog and the Cave Troll. Although, I really cannot see Jurassic Park's effects being beaten any time soon. (Always have agreed with Tuukka that A.I and Pearl Harbour have some of the most incredible effetcs ever created.

3 - Peter Jackson's slow motion shots were sometimes a little silly, and over-used, and in particular - un-needed in areas.

4 - The swooping camera movements in Orthanc were, for me, the lowest shots in the entire film (along with Galadriel's morph, which was terribly done).

This film, like every-other film ever made does have a lot of flaws, not just one, nor two, but lots but the good far out-weighs the bad, by far.

I've just highlighted what I disliked, everything else is positive.

By the way, just like in the book (Fellowship), I thought the first half far exceeded the second half. I think it's because the Nazgul are so scary, and were very well handled.

I'm still sticking with a low 8/10.

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 12-21-2001).]

[mixx3113]

Saw the movie yesterday and was extremely impressed. I've only recently read the trilogy, but I'm a growing fanatic. The scenery was amazing. The costumes and CGI were awesome. I felt like I was in Middle Earth. I have only two small problems with the movie.
1. I wish they would have shown more of the trip from Bree to Riverdell. Gandalf's night at weathertop had a ton of visual potential. They also could have shown more of the relationship growing between Aragon & Frodo.
2. They needed to show the scene were Galadriel gives the fellowship there gifts. Many items are important in the scene. The flask of light, the leaf cape clips and other items. These items are of importance later on. Also they could have developed Gimli's acceptance of the Elves, since it's obvious he distrusts them at first and later changes his ways.
Overall, the movie rocked. Just go and enjoy the great story. Don't worry about the hype, and let it engross you.

[Scorchlord]

For me (and probably everyone else), the movie peaked in Moria. Afterwords, I wasn't as into it as I had been. Lothlorien, from a movie standpoint, was pretty much useless. No lembas! What the hell?

Luckily, the backstory will already be established for the "continuances" (sequels doesn't work), and should be better for the big screen.

[Antwort]

Cool, at IMDB LOTR-FOTR is ranked #1 on the top 250 movies list

[TheRock]

So I watched Phantom Menace on DVD last night just to compare CGI after watching LOTR yesterday afternoon. I was shocked at how totally fake the effects in Phantom Menace look compared to LOTR. Naboo is a complete joke compared to Rivendell when they show the long camera shot. The gungans and jar jar binks looks even worse than I remembered. Yes, I'm not afraid to admit I somewhat enjoyed Phantom Menace, enough to buy the dvd. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but I can't help to think if Jackson gives us 2 more films like this one and Lucas gives us another below-par effort(I'm sorry but the trailers for Episode II have been horrible.....HORRIBLE! The acting!!!! The stupid love scenes!!! That's not star wars!!!! sorry), Star Wars is in real trouble.

[cutman]

I just saw Fellowship of the Ring for the second time, and I loved it even more. I am moving it up from a 9/10 to a 10/10.

I paid attention to different things this time, and I kept a few of the ideas on this board in mind. I agree with the person who said that the waterfall in Rivendall is static in its first shot. However, I disagree that it is necessarily a bad thing. I think that it is a tribute to Alan Lee. This was a point of the movie where PJ could put a subtle tribue to Lee by using one of his paintings. I loved it.

About the special effects, I don't see how they can be compared to Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park's special effects were revolutionary at the time (like Terminator 2's were) but now they seem dated. Look at the brachiosaurus in the beginning...it looks fake. Lord of the Ring's special effects were way better than JP's, but they were not as revolutionary, in my opinion.

The pacing of the movie was excellent. The first time around, the pacing was the only problem I had. However, I was not bored ONCE during the entire second viewing. This, I think, is what is going to help it earn more money, and it is why all the critics love it. On a similar note, I also saw Gladiator twice in the theater. I fell asleep the second time around. In Gladiator, the fight scenes are awesome, but everything in between is only interesting the first time around. On the other hand, I enjoyed every bit about Fellowship.

I, too, am dissapointed about the lack of detail in Lothlorien, but they could not include everything. I'm just happy that they made the movie 3 hours. About the Lembas, yes it is important, but they haven't explained how the Fellowship got food yet (like how they had the sausuge and other meats cooking over the fire)...no reason to start explaining food now. I thing Lembas will get an explanation later.

Well, I plan on seeing the movie again. I honestly loved it (well, maybe Galadriel's effects were sort of weird, but that doesn't make them bad) enough to see it a third time in the theater. When I get back to college in January, I will make everyone of my friends who hasn't seen it go with me. Then, when the Two Towers trailer is released, I will see Fellowship again.

In conclusion, I took my best friend to see the movie with me today, and he loved it as well. He hasn't read the books, and he isn't a fantasy lover. He does, however, appreciated good movies. He said he thought ALL of the special effects were top notch, and because he is more objective than a raving LotR fanatic like me, I think he is a better judge. He also loved the beautiful scenery, the acting, and he said he was not bored once during the entire movie.

I will continue reading this thread, but I will contribute my thoughts in the Two Towers thread in the Upcoming Movies Forum. See y'all there.

cutman

PS I still thought Arwen was awesome. I liked her much more than Galadriel. What a badass She-Elf

PPS Shit, forgot to add. My friend thought that Legolas was a freaking bad ass. I agree with him.

[ak]

Actually, Jurassic Parks's effects were mostly superior to those of the Cave Troll in FOTR. And, if your friend actually isn't a fan, this doesn't make him more objective when it comes to the special effects, just the picture as a whole I would say.
I don't know if anyone's done this, but my rating for the effects work in FOTR is 7/10. Although I'd give Gollum, or the glimpses of him 9/10.

[LordKaruku]

***** IMAGE SPOILERS BELOW!!! SKIP PAST THIS POST IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN LOTR YET!! ****

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Well, yes...except that having seen Harry Potter so recently, and Shrek on DVD, I think the cave troll suffered by comparison.</font>

I'm sorry... are you actually saying the troll in LOTR was worse than the one in Shrek?

http://www.ringfaq.com/img/shrektroll.jpg

Whatever.

[This message has been edited by LordKaruku (edited 12-21-2001).]

[Common Sense Man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dicaprio_travolta_man:
I ask this question because I am curious to know, I mean sure the ring ruled all other rings, but it also somehow broke the fellowship in a way, made some of members greedy and uninterested in anything but the ring, so what does One Ring To Rule Them All mean?????????????</font>

The whole concept was that Sauron gave the other rings to everyone under false pretense. He wanted them to have the rings so he could eventually make his One Ring and take control over all the other lesser Rings.

And as he made the One ring with part of his soul basically he is the only one that can use it without going insane for power.

The reason it broke up the fellowship, well only Boromir really. Is because mens greed for power is so strong that they have a hard time resisting the rings power. It wants them to use it so they can become corrupted and then take the ring back to Sauron.

One thing they did not get into in the movie which may make it harder for non readers of the series to follow is the personality of the Hobbits.

They are true of heart and generally good natured and would never think to possess anything for purely selfish reasons like gaining power over the other races.

That is how Bilbo is able to resist the power of the ring for so long his is true of heart.

But even he began to succumb and needed to give it up, with difficulty as you saw.

So Frodo can resist it more than others but most he comes in contact with will be drawn to the rings power and desire to take it, such as Boromir did.

You really need to read the books for the complete backstory believe me it makes the move 10 times more powerful as you know what a simple look from a character conveys, even when they do not speak.

I am sure you all know by now but I have not seen it posted so I will post it.

FOTR now holds the record for the highest one day December opening! I think it was 18 Mil.

Out.....


[This message has been edited by Common Sense Man (edited 12-21-2001).]

[DIRK]

I saw LOTR tonight, and I have to say it was better than I expected it to be. The scenery and special effects are breath taking. I think the film does a great job capturing the world the book describes. As much as I liked the movie however, I do think it has one fairly large flaw; the ending. The end feels unfinished. I felt there should have been a liitle more closure. I was waiting for the next scene when the credits came up. This is the first of three movies I know, but thats no reason not to give the audience a more complete ending. To me, LOTR part one is dissapointing because it can't possibly stand on it's own. The ending reminded me more of a TV mini series finish that leaves the viewers with a cliffhanger so that they tune in next week. Instead of a weak though, we will be waiting a whole year. I got the feeling that a lot of people in the audience felt that they had just sat through an incomplete movie that was three hours long. But, maybe its just me. Even though I wasn't crazy about the ending, I still think it's a must see film. 9/10

[Common Sense Man]

It is not a trilogy per se but one long movie.

I too heard groans in the theater at the ending but that is how the book ends.

It just ends and says "Here ends the Fellowship of the Ring" or something along those lines.

I knew it was going to happen so it did not phase me. I am glad PJ stuck to it as to make a cliffhanger or go into the second book would have not worked.

That is another benefit of having read the series before seeing the movie.

I can't wait until they are all out and you can watch them seamlessly back to back.

Wouldn't that be a nice DVD feature, no open or credits except at the beginning and end.

Out.......

[Ender]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Claymore:
It did indeed - the elves had plastic pointy ears.</font>

Well, that reall is the only physical difference between men and elves. Sure, maybe weird-ass colored hair or eyes would have helped differentiate them a bit more, but in the end, there's not much variation on them appearance-wise.

I thought they clearly identified elves as different from men by repeatedly refering to them as immortal (or, technically, I guess the term "nomortal" is more accurate, since elves can die).

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Common Sense Man:
The whole concept was that Sauron gave the other rings to everyone under false pretense. He wanted them to have the rings so he could eventually make his One Ring and take control over all the other lesser Rings.

And as he made the One ring with part of his soul basically he is the only one that can use it without going insane for power.

The reason it broke up the fellowship, well only Boromir really. Is because mens greed for power is so strong that they have a hard time resisting the rings power. It wants them to use it so they can become corrupted and then take the ring back to Sauron.

One thing they did not get into in the movie which may make it harder for non readers of the series to follow is the personality of the Hobbits.

They are true of heart and generally good natured and would never think to possess anything for purely selfish reasons like gaining power over the other races.

That is how Bilbo is able to resist the power of the ring for so long his is true of heart.

But even he began to succumb and needed to give it up, with difficulty as you saw.

So Frodo can resist it more than others but most he comes in contact with will be drawn to the rings power and desire to take it, such as Boromir did.

You really need to read the books for the complete backstory believe me it makes the move 10 times more powerful as you know what a simple look from a character conveys, even when they do not speak.

I am sure you all know by now but I have not seen it posted so I will post it.

FOTR now holds the record for the highest one day December opening! I think it was 18 Mil.

Out.....


[This message has been edited by Common Sense Man (edited 12-21-2001).]</font>

Thanks for answering my question. Your answer helps me better understand the whole meaning behind the ring, and after seeing the movie I definetly want to read the book(s), that will help me even more because I can actually know what the hobbits and the rest of the fellowship are thinking. I plan on buying all 3 books next week. And hopefully I'll have the first one done before The Return Of The King comes out http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif.

[Common Sense Man]

Just a warning about spoilers.

In my opinion if you don't wish to read any spoiler about FOTR or any of the upcoming LOTR's movies you should never even open this thread.

I am not saying I will not post warnings in my posts but there are many secrets yet to be revealed, and I mean "Luke I am your Father" type secrets.

I can see the people bitching already saying that the movies are now ruined for them because they read a post.

So take heed if you are that freaky about not wanting to know the whole story and I suggest you stay out of this thread.

Out.....

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Well, thank you Horror. I am a very big fan of Tolkein, but I never pretended to myself that this film would be perfect. No film is perfect, and like all other films, this one has flaw[s] - but just one really. If they had only spent more time here and there, this film still wouldnt have gotten a 10 (no film will) but it would have ranked higher than #3 on my list of favorite films. When the DVD comes out, and all 3 films are out, I am positive that this film will be my favorite. And for the record, my top 3 films are,...

3. Fellowship of the Ring

2. Jaws

1. Jurassic Park - now wait, before you throw out all credibility, you have to know some things. I LOVED dinosaurs when I was a kid. Had a ton of toys, book, movies, everything. I was 8 when this movie came out, and my mom saw how much I like it, and took me to see it 4 times subsequentially. I would sit in the living room, and watch the commercial that I recorded 10 times in a row, than I would watch the special-effects making-of show that I recorded. The special-effects brought to life, something I thought I would never see, and I loved this film. Granted I dont like it as much anymore, I still remember the feeling it gave me seeing it the first time, and that feeling is something that you can only get when your young,...and thats why Jurassic Park will never be replaced. Jaws on the other hand will be moved back once I get the DVD with an hour of additional footage for Lord of the Rings. Im telling you people. See this movie again, forget the hype, and watch it just to watch a great film - because that truly is, what this film is.

By the way, what did you think of it Horror Whore??</font>

What did I think of what? LOTR or Jurassic Park??

[SubMethod]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dicaprio_travolta_man:
Thanks for answering my question. Your answer helps me better understand the whole meaning behind the ring, and after seeing the movie I definetly want to read the book(s), that will help me even more because I can actually know what the hobbits and the rest of the fellowship are thinking. I plan on buying all 3 books next week. And hopefully I'll have the first one done before The Return Of The King comes out http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif.</font>


Just a suggestion that you should read The Hobbit first. It tells you what happens before the LOTR, and will help you understand more about Hobbits and other things in LOTR.


Also, the movie didn't seem like it was three hours. It went by really fast to me. I guess that's a good sign, because I did think it was awesome and plan on seeing it at least once more.


[This message has been edited by SubMethod (edited 12-22-2001).]

[Kim K]

I don't know if someone already mentioned this, but Peter Jackson has a rather amusing brief cameo in LoTR. He's the burping guy, that the hobbits passes outside the Prancing Pony.

[ak]

I really want to see the film again now. Just thinking of the opening prologue with Sauron smacking all those armies out the way was quite spectacular. The whole film was spectacular, but I still believe very much that some aspects didn't work. Also, hopefully, i'll see more merit in the Balrog, even if I was pretty dissapointed with its design.

[cow]

did anyone else think the Orcs looked like the bad guy from Galaxy Quest?

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, I just got back from seeing it again, and all I can say is that it was great. The pacing was fine with me, the CGI was INCREDIBLE (you people are honestly expecting too much, that was some of the best CGI work to date) everything worked. Even Galadriel, it felt totally OK. I think you all should be a little less critical, because you are seeing things that arent there. Trust me, everything was great. I stick to my 9/10 and will give my final review after I see it the 3rd time. And Horrow, I mean Fellowship.

[Ender]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cow:
did anyone else think the Orcs looked like the bad guy from Galaxy Quest?</font>

No, but the Uruk-Hai did give me a very "Planet of the Apes" type of feel.

[Beltfed]

Just saw it tonight, good movie...was it great? I would have to see it again to decide.

The effects were really good, some parts better than others. One too many sappy scenes for my tastes, but tried very hard not to let it bother me.

So much has been very well put in this thread...that it basically covers everything I had to say (so repeating it makes no sense)

[This message has been edited by Beltfed (edited 12-23-2001).]

[The Djinn]

OK, I don't mean to be a party-pooper or piss on anyone's bonfire or anything like that but I have to say that my honest opinion of this film is that...well...IT SUCKED!!! O.K. I understand I have not read the books, and maybe I should have done, but I did the same with Harry Potter and thought that it was way superior. The problem with the Fellowship of the Ring was that there was too much storytelling, which, after two hours, got a little bit tedious. The action scenes were the best part of the movie. The fighting was done brilliantly and the scenes from Faldo's point of view when he wore the ring were pretty special, but the rest of the movie was not as good as it could have been.
I know there are another two episodes to come, but on the viewing of this one, I will not be going to see them. Hype surrounding a film is a pretty dangerous thing nowadays. Movies like The Phantom Menace and Titanic were hyped up beyond belief. Occasionally a movie does live up to it's hype (Phantom Menace) but more often than not, it doesn't and here is a film that falls into the latter catagory.
It's alright for movie-goers who liked the film to say "But you have to see the other two parts to "Get-it"", but the first part should be good enough to make you want to watch the next ones. Star Wars Episode One did this and I will definatly be seeing episode two in May!!!
Before everyone starts to jump on my back regardingmy opinion, I want you all to realise that it is only opinion and the fact that I did not like the movie does not mean that those people who have not seen it will not like it either.
I just felt I had to get my point across about the film that has probably failed to live up to the hype more than any other film ever.
Credit to the actors however for putting in a fine performance, especially Sean Bean's moments...I won't say too much...but he battled on...

[SubMethod]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The Djinn:
and the scenes from Faldo's point of view when he wore the ring were pretty special,
</font>

You mean Frodo right? Just wondering. Or is that just a typo?

[ak]

Quote by Djinn:

"Movies like The Phantom Menace and Titanic were hyped up beyond belief. Occasionally a movie does live up to it's hype (Phantom Menace) but more often than not, it doesn't and here is a film that falls into the latter catagory."

The Phantom Menace certainly did not live up to its hype, Lord Of The Rings most certainly did. Have you been paying attention to any of the reviews of the film?

[Ancalagon]

MY REVIEW

I feel a little like 'comic book guy' from the Simpsons, rushing on to the net to describe my first impressions of this movie. I should really start with something like; Worst Episode Everrrrr! I know there are a number of threads that have already sprung to light regarding 'The Fellowship of the Ring', however, I need to unload, so I will.
Cinematically the film is tremendous, photographically, New Zealand is perfect. The film as a standalone work is good, better than most. The sets are excellent, the graphics are impressive. Overall, a well constructed, produced and delivered movie in its own right. Though I did notice some decidely dodgy cuts from scene to scen which I am sure will all become clear when the DVD is released.

Now, that said, where ought one to really begin? The History of the Ring was fast and furious, leaving no-one in any doubt about why we had arrived at this point. I expected some ommissions for the sake of pace, I wasn't disappointed. Changes, cleverly interwoven to assist one in losing track of originality were perfect. Our Hobbits, especially Pippin and Merry were added for simple entertainment value, comic interlude, dancing to the tune of the organ-grinder like the performing monkeys they were asked to be. Gandalf I thought was very well portrayed, though I was concerned for him when he became rather panicky and paranoid. However, I liked his character all the same. Ian McKellen made him come alive, that is undeniable, even his foolish entrance to Bag-End was amusing. Similarly, Bilbo was represented by an extremely competent Ian Holm, though he had lost a great deal of his character in the time allowed.

Frodo.....hmmmm, Frodo? I would not have worried were Frodo to have been decapitated in the first scene of the film, for he had no screen presence at all. An alter-boy cast as an unlikely hero, I think. Sam was just a some bloke playing a guy called Sam.

The journey from Bag-End to Bree, was new! No Crickhollow and no Farmer Maggot. That I can live with, for time was pressing. However, the introduction of Merry and Pippin to the group was as pathetic as the characters themselves.

The Riders, very good. Frightening enough to be understood by all. They were certainly a darker, more sinister addition to a waning first 45mins.

Aragorns introduction at Bree was rather a let-down. As the film progressed in became apparent that his character had been given the once-over by the scriptwriters and found to be wanting in weakness. Hence he was given a more fragile and frankly distrurbing storyline of his own that simply served no purpose but to deconstruct his essential characteristics

Saruman was a disaster in my opinion. Openly he had become Saurons very own Grima Wormtongue, from which we learn in an instant that Saruman has been in daily contact via Inter'Palantir'Netmeeting with our beloved rogue Sauron. Then begins the woeful Wizards dual we had heard so much about and chose to try and ignore. Though I was mightily impressed with Gandalf's breakdancing sequence. I cringed and winced as I watched, but, the film has pace and moved me swiftly on.

Liv Tyler played her role as expected. Yet, her appearance at Weathertop stunned me. Giving the benefit of the doubt to our intrepid producer I sucked on my teeth and watched the rest unfold with one eye open. The race to the ford was exciting, that cannot be denied, however a huge and important chunk of Frodo's strength, determination and valiant defiance was washed away with Arwens 'rushing water' spell. I did however like the touch of Arwen giving a little of her 'special' powers to keep Frodo from perishing in her arms. Though I did miss that in Tolkiens own portrayal of Arwen.

I don't like Elves! Well, that's not strictly true, I did like Elves until I saw them in this film. Agent Elrond was denied his most subtle quality, empathy, The Council of Elrond was an absolute farce and the free-for-all that broke out was deeply, deeply disturbing. Legolas as an aggressor, dictating to Boromir the right of Aragorn to the Throne of Gondor.

The mountain pass and Moria well deserve a mention at this point. I had absolute admiration for this, apart from Frodo knowing the 'word' to enter Moria. Hmmmm! The mines looked dark, haunting and very sinister. A masterly depiction in my opinion. The Balrog was well worth waiting for, though his screen presence was all too short and less frightening than it ought to have been.

Galadriel was everything and nothing like her character could have been. I am not sure how to explain this, because Lorien itself was rather like a 'flash in the pan', and once they had left it was all too easily forgotten. I think is was rather disappointing as my lasting impressions of Lorien still linger with clarity from the book. Her scene at refusing the ring was good, though I did get the impression she would turn up knocking and wailing at my frontdoor to herald a death later that evening.

Only once do we see Gollum pursuing our adventurers , in Moria. The remainder of the film is somewhat reminiscent of a book I once read by Tolkien. Boromir is true to his word, wants ring, doesn't get ring, dies a valiant death. Sadly, I will miss Sean, I think he would have made a better Faramir.

Excellent battle sequence at the end after Frodos jaunt up and down Amon Hen. A few sticky twists in the plot show Frodo meeting everyone on his way to the river, even to spend a few choice moments with Aragorn???? They go their separate ways and everyone sighs because the ending is rather lame.

I have been a Tolkien fan for over 20 years. I have long-expected a suitable attempt at making 'The Rings' come to life on celluloid. This is an excellent start, though not without serious 'character flaws' that are impossible to ignore. I fully understand the need to reduce the book to fit the screen, however, I lack confidence in Peter Jacksons constant claims not to diversify from Tolkiens characters as they were originally intended.

Though excellent, the film is far from perfect. I feel some distaste when I see the sycophantic reviews in favour of the producer, when really the epic is not on the screen but between the pages of Tolkiens books. Let us not loose sight of who the real Author is, in favour of scriptwriters who have simply plundered and garbled one of our most classic literary works.

Believe it or not, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, though I felt I was denied the classic it could so easily have been. One wonders how 'The Lord of the Rings' has managed to stand on its own two feet for so long! Roll on Hollywood.

[cutman]

Well, it seems like the negative reviews are starting to come in. However, one of them comes from a purist and another from someone who thought Frodo's name was Faldo. You'd think that by the end of a three hour movie even a Star Wars freak would be able to catch the name of the star.

Dumb-Fokker, how many days until the Two Towers opens? I can't wait!

[TheRock]

This movie is not going to appeal to everyone. You have to be a person who likes fantasy films, has a good attention span, doesn't mind long movies with several long dialogue scenes, and doesn't mind that a movie can end without a happy wrapped-up nicely ending. I am really surprised how well the movie has gone over with the average fan and movie critics. I've seen a hugely-hyped film get such glowing review about across the board. BTW, I've seen it 3 times, that's 9 hours, and I love every second of it!

[Tuukka]

Like it was to be expected, the films is most strongly disliked by Tolkien purists and... People who like Phantom Menace! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

I'm going to see it for a second time today or tomorrow, if I manage to get tickets. I carried all too much baggage with me the first time and it might be better with 2nd viewing.

[Tuukka]

No showings today! Damn!

Anyway, I agree with Scorchlord that the film started to lose some steam once the fellowship reached Lothlorien. That segment of the film is pretty unnecessary to the flow of the story. It gives some welcome time to relax between the two big battles, but the description of elves and the whole elven culture seemed a bit "off" to me. Then again, Lothorien looked AWESOME in my opinion. Also, the final battle should have been more dynamic and impressive. It hurts the film a bit that the most impressive action sequence happens 50 minutes before the ending.

I'm VERY interested to see how much the R-rated DVD release will affect the battle footage. I wouldn't be surprised to know that the choppy editing is trying to hide the gory nature of the footage. When Aragorn swinges his sword to an Uruk-Hai, the PG-13 version cuts away, in the R version we might see a longer shot with the sword cutting the Uruk-Hai's head off. Hopefully the swordfighting sequences will become more dynamic that way.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

I have one more question (for now), who is the actor that plays legolas (sp.)? He was probaly my favorite charecter from the movie and he's pretty smooth at shooting that bow and arrow, Does anyone know who the actor is and what else he has been in??? Because I would like to check out a few of his other movies as well....

P.S. No release date for the DVD has been announsed as of it, but it has been confirmed that it will be part of Infinifilm, and if you all know what that is you know that Infinifilm is probaly the greatest source of DVD out there today, it features the best features and allows to go beyond the movie!! That's going to be so cool because I love Infinifilm, so I can't wait until the DVD is available..

[This message has been edited by dicaprio_travolta_man (edited 12-24-2001).]

[Kim K]

His name is Orlando Bloom and he can also been seen in Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down.

[Benny]

Here is my official and very long review of the movie:

DISCLAIMER: I have not read any of the books in the LOTR trilogy nor have I read the Hobbit, but I just might start to after seeing this movie! So I will be rating this movie on just how good the film is and not comparing them to the books or anything else.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie before seeing it Thursday night. Sure the scenery and the battle scenes looked great on the commercials, but would the movie hold my attention for three whole hours? It sure did.

I won't get into the story much in this review, but it's basically about this kid Frodo Baggins, who goes on a quest to destroy a ring, which his uncle Bilbo found 60 years ago, at the Mountain of Doom, which is a long way from his home of Shire. A fellowship of 9 people is formed later in the film to destroy the ring, which Frodo included. The story was laid out well in the movie and surprisingly easy to follow. The first 10 minutes of the film was narrated and told what had already happened in Middle Earth and laid ground work for what would happen next.

The acting was superb in this film. Elijah Wood does well as Frodo, as did ian Holm as Bilbo. But Sir Ian McKellen topped them all as Gandalf the Wizard. His performance is wondeful and deserves a look for Best Supporting Actor Oscar this winter.

The special effects were also grand in the movie, and were used well. While the CGI looked corny in say, Episode 1 or Harry Potter, the effects were much more realistic in "Fellowship". The visuals were also superb and beautiful, especially in Rivendell and Shire.

Not only does the movie have great CGI and acting, but it is also very well-made. Peter Jackson's direction was great and the movie was paced very well. It neither sagged nor went too fast, and I was interested throughout the whole film. There even was some comic relief which I was not expecting from Merry and Pippin, who were like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.

Finally, the story is great. It is not hard to relate the story and the characters to the Star Wars trilogy or even the Harry Potter books. For example, Gandalf can be traced to Obi-Wan Kanobe or Albus Dumbledore. And Sauron can be found in Darth Vader or Voldemort.

There were three big "blockbuster" movies this fall, Monsters, Inc., Harry Potter, and this one. While I also enjoyed the other two, "Fellowship" is far and away the best movie of the three. It's also one of the very best films I've seen so far this year! From a standpoint of someone who didn't read the books, I give this film a 10/10! This is only the second film along with Memento which I have given such high marks, but believe me it deserves them. Now all I have to do is wait till next year, when the Two Towers comes out! Hopefully by then I will have read all three books!

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 12-24-2001).]

[bskutle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Like it was to be expected, the films is most strongly disliked by Tolkien purists and... People who like Phantom Menace! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif
</font>

Hey! I thoroughly enjoyed "The Phantom Menace" and loved "Fellowship" (second-best film of the year)! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif I've already seen it twice, with plans to see it many, many, many more times before "The Two Towers" comes out.

[rgse]

I haven't read the books, so forgive my ignorance, but:

Does Legolas have a magical never-ending quiver of arrows? It doesn't look like he has any more than 20 arrows in his pack, but it never seems to become empty.

[cutman]

To answer your question, Legolas runs out of arrows many times in the books, but he recovers them after each battle. In fact, during an upcoming battle in the Two Towers, I believe we will see him wandering around looking for more arrows during the heat of battle. So, yes, he runs out of arrows, but the movie doesn't show him getting them out of the dead orc bodies (the arrows generally do not break).

[meccajay]

My Confusion --

I saw this opening day, and I must say it was a great movie!! *****5 stars!!
Ive never read any of the books and I dont quite have the lingo/charachters in my head yet, but great movie none the less...

Here's my confusion...

The Dark Lord is Sauron right? and his castle/empire is Mordor/Mt Doom right?
Okay, then what is Saruman's relation to Sauron? And what is his headquarters??
It seemed initially like Saruman was in the service of Sauron, but later in the movie he completely took over, he made the orc's and there new successor's, his magic is what stopped the fellowship over the mountain, and he was all-seeing, he knew all there moves....sort of like a Dark Lord. The other thing is Saruman's HQ. In the beginning they showed the evil brewing in Mordor, and the castle of Sauron(susposedly) later Sauron came to Saruman thru the crystal ball, and asked him to build him something...from then on it was HIS(Saruman)castle that was the headquarters for evil.....was this Mordor?? Are they 2 seperate locations?? If so then why 2 locations?? In the end is was Saruman's castle where EVERYTHING happened. This also leads me to another question. If they kidnapped the 2 hobbits, then are they taking them to the Saruman?? Or to Mordor??

Confused!

The Galadriel thing... I didnt get any of this. First they say she's the evil witch of the forest, then she's susposedly an elf queen. I just didnt get this whole sequence.

IS SHE GOOD OR BAD????

It seemed like she was trying to get the ring in orger to take over herself, but this was probably just the ring tempting her right?

Again, I loved the movie, and these questions are not to say that the movie had any holes - It was just MY confusion.

Please help!

[The Djinn]

I would like to apologise for my spelling error back on page four of this thread when i incorrectly said Frodo's name as Faldo (dunno where that one came from) It seems that a lot of people disagree with me highly regarding my opinions but opinions are opinions and min is mine...sorry if I offended anyone with it

[Threatened]

Meccajay,

Let me enlighten you on these two matters;

(SP!)

Saruman is the head of the order of Wizards, he is Gandalfs superior and he lives at Isengard (the wizards' HQ if you will). He foolishly used the crystal ball to see what's going on in Middle Earth (especially Mordor) and was caught doing it by Sauron, who in all his evil power corrupted Saruman's mind and bend him to his will, basicly making the wizard another powerful tool in his search for the one ring.

After Gandalf's visit, capture, and escape Saruman knows who bears the ring and what plans the good folk of Middle Earth (Gandalf, Elrond & co.) have for it and he informs his dark master. Sauron commands him to create an army "worthy of Mordor" to find the ring and kill the one(s) who carry it.

From that point on Saruman's Isengard is turned into an outpost of Mordor, an evil place where Orcs are bred and where Saruman rules... It's dark and evil but it is not Mordor, not by a long shot. Mordor is a land that breaths evil, just listen to Boromir's discription of it during the council of Elrond, or look at the Ringwraiths, for they come from Mordor and they portray what Mordor is like (even bugs flee when they're near). Isengard is just one fort, a 'small' base of operations for one of the dark lord's captains, Mordor however is the dark land, it is where Sauron lives. You will see it in the next two movies and then you will understand how small Isengard actually is in comparison... and how Saruman is just a tool...

--

As for Galadriel; In my opinion the Lothlorien sequence (together with the Bree part) should've been longer. Lots of people who do not know the books are confused about what's really going on in Lothlorien... Galadriel is good, she bears on of the three rings of power made for the Elves and, in the books, she talks to and advices the entire fellowship (instead of just Frodo), and she provides them with clothes and supplies and gifts when they take off (Legolas, for example gets a bow from her).

The reason why Gimli the Dwarf calls her an evil Elven witch, is simply superstition. Dwarves don't like Elves, and are especially wary of the mysterious ones bearing powerful rings and living in hidden magical kingdoms.

If you really want to understand what's going on there, my only advice is: read the books. The Lothlorien part is a wonderful passage and you will more appreciate the way Galadriel is portrayed in the movie once you know the whole story. Thumbs up for Cate Blanchet by the way - she makes a wonderful mysterious Elven queen.

-T

[This message has been edited by Threatened (edited 12-24-2001).]

[meccajay]

Thank you Threatened, I now understand the evil 'outpost' way of thinking!! Thank you soooo much for the clarity! I also think I understand the forest sequence a lot better now that you've explained the elves/dwarfs history a little.
Now, as for the ending, which had me a little puzzled....lets see if I have it. The 2 hobbits are being taken to Saruman and his 'outpost' and the fellowship is going there to rescue them, while Frodo is going to MORDOR alone to drop the ring into MT Doom...right? Is that it??

[Threatened]

That's it http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Frodo and Sam will continue the quest to destroy the ring and travel towards Mordor, while Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are gonna hunt the Orcs and try to free Merry and Pippin.

You are now officialy ready for The Two Towers http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

-T

[This message has been edited by Threatened (edited 12-24-2001).]

[cutman]

Except for one thing...I just want to make it clear that Sauron and Saruman know of the existance of the Fellowship, but they do not know what the purpose of the Fellowship is. In other words, Sauron has no idea that the purpose of the Fellowship is to destroy the ring...he thinks they are going to Gondor to USE the ring (like Boromir wanted....poor, poor Boromir...he was awesome!)

Merry Christmas.

[Scorchlord]

Saw it again today and was totally blown away this time around. The comedy in it didn't bother me nearly as much, it seemed, in fact, to be spot-on and perfectly timed. The only one I didn't like was the line about "Great...where are we going?" after the Fellowship is formed.

The CGI seemed better to me, too. The cave troll looked good, even though that sense of mass wasn't there. And when there were characters on the cave troll, you could tell they were fake - it looked artificial.

Lothlorien was too short, so that DVD better have more!

I just love how the lidless eye of Sauron is done. It's brutal as hell and you can just FEEL it bending its will on Frodo. Great stuff.

I stick with the 9/10 I gave it earlier. I plan to see it again, and again, and again.

[Common Sense Man]

I saw it again for the second time today and the theater was just as packed as it was on opening day.

I looked for some of the things that others have been complaining about and specifically for the mysterious waterfalls that do not move in Rivendell.

I did not see them, sure there are a couple of falls way in the back that are more mist than water but all the ones where you could see the water are moving along fine.

This movie is a very emotional one, it surprised me how emotional I got at times, I am not easily moved.

But I had to laugh as I walked out of the theater today as a young girl was balling her head off as she left.

It was uncontrolled sorrow!

I wanted to tell her everything would turn out fine, but hey it doesn't, the story is like life there are casualties along the way.

Had a lot of audience reaction this time, lots of laughs and even a few vengeful outcries when Aragorn beheads the Orc that killed Boramir.

It was so funny in the total silence that immediately followed the beheading one women in the theater clearly stated in a loud voice.

"Finally!"

I do not care what you think of this movie, as my opinion is my own as is yours. But it has been years since I have been in a theater charged with such emotion, and I mean real emotion not just laughter.

I think it will be really fun to watch in the next flicks when the Heroes start to get some revenge, the audience is going to eat it up. See you there!

Out........

[This message has been edited by Common Sense Man (edited 12-24-2001).]

[Tuukka]

As for the WATERFALLS... There was a separate crew that took shots of REAL waterfalls in New Zealand and they were composited to the film. So all those fake looking CGI waterfalls are in fact REAL waterfalls. That's how they look like.

[ak]

Actually, I read that the team went to Niagara Falls in America to get some shots for the waterfalls.

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
Actually, I read that the team went to Niagara Falls in America to get some shots for the waterfalls.</font>

That was for the big waterfall at Amon Hen. The smaller ones were shot in NZ.

[Scorchlord]

I looked for the supposed fake waterfalls today as well, and saw nothing.

The only complaint I had the second time around was that the sound system in the theater started going on the fritz around Rivendell, making odd popping noises whenever the music rose to a crescendo.

[Ender]

***FELLOWSHIP SPOILERS (not that anyone who hasn't seen the movie should be reading this anyway, but still, better safe than sorry)***

So, what did everyone think of Boromir? He's probably my fave LOTR character, mainly because he has so many shades to him. He's a righteous man, but too ambitious for his own good. He wants nothing but peace and glory for Gondor, but he does precisely the wrong things to gain it. Basically, I like him because he's a good person but is still capable of doing evil things.

I thought Sean Bean turned in a kickass performance. His part was too small to warrant any supporting actor nominations, which is a shame. I'm pleased that he was allowed adequate screentime, and that his death scene and final monolouge was handled so well. I'd have liked more interaction between him and Aragorn, but I suppose there's only so much you can squeeze into 180 minutes.

[Scorchlord]

There's always the DVD.

I thought the movie Boromir looked great. Sean Bean played his conflicted character really well (I especially love his cynicism when he's handling the shards of Narsil). He certainly helped to quell the vomitous crap that was the viking from Bakshi's cartoon.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Actually, I think Boromir would be able to get a nom for Supporting Actor,...he was in quite alot of the movie, and had several scenes. Actually, all of the characters are rather developed. Moreso than some people complain about. Pippin and Merry are given their share of developement, as are Gimli, Boromir, even Arwen and Galadriel. Similar reactions happened when I saw the mvoie both times, regarding the audience. People laughed, cried, jumped. It was great. My mom was balling even after we left the theater, as were ALOT of people. I think everyone who said this movie would not appeal to woman was sorely mistaken. My mom loved it, and so did both my Aunts (they came up to visit so 11 of us went and saw it). My girlfriend loved it too. Hell, I dont see why anyone shouldnt love it - theres something for everyone.

[Common Sense Man]

Yes it was a very emotional pic and what woman wouldn't get all gushy over cute little Frodo going thru all he does.

Hey but I am immune to such things! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/tongue.gif

I think many did not expect it to be so well rounded, action, deep drama, and a little comedy.

Oh the next one is going to be gut wrenching especially all the intense action at Helms Deep. Bring it on!

Out......

[Tuukka]

FOTR has made 95.3 million in seven days in USA alone. The foreign numbers are not out yet, but it's probably around 170 million worldwide.

[Tuukka]

BTW, www.theonering.net (http://www.theonering.net) has already 6833 reviews of FOTR. That's right, 6833 reviews already... They are of course mostly people who have read the book. Average is 4.6/5.

[Scorchlord]

Another thing I liked about the movie is what my father calls "dirt under the fingernails syndrome." In most movies that are about adventure and travel, etc. etc., you never see the characters dirty. An example is Doctor Zhivago (only because I watched it yesterday). The movie is astounding, easily one of the best ever, but you look at the main characters, there's never a hair out of place, they're always wearing makeup, they look like they just got a makeover...LOTR doesn't have that. It's gritty, it's dirty, and it's bloody. THat little bit makes it all the much more detailed and well done.

[Dehydrator]

Even if there is "dirt under the fingernails", the flick is still way to bright, way to happy and way too loosely based on the book. Jackson did a good job directing and all but still...I'm disappointed. And I ain't even a Tolkin Purist! I guess real Tolin Purists would have despised the movie for being made. Let's face it, most of the good reviews we read these days are made up by the hype that surrounds this movie. Can't anybody just bitch it to pieces? That would be nice with me, then I know that I am not alone. I don't hate this movie, I like it a lot but as a adaption of the book is just SUCKS.

Ralph Baskin did a better job with his animated version of the first book. Why couldn't Jackson just pay some drawers to re-create the feel of THIS version? The Animated Version is dark, mean and edgy. No shittin'arse love angle between Aragorn and Arwen here. No idiotic comic relief from the hobits. No out-of-place humor.

Keep in mind, I hate FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING as a book-adaption. As a regular movie, I'm just not "open" enough to enjoy it. I know, expecations and shit but who cares, it's an adaption of LOTR for christ's sake! The world is way too nice on Jackson.

[Tuukka]

Or maybe it just didn't meet *your* interpretation of the book. Some Tolkien purists have said that the film is too dark, too scary, too creepy, too lacking in humour. The exact opposite of what you are saying.

It's a film, not a book. It's PJ's interpretation of the story, not *your* interpretation.

Just watch it as a film, not as a visual companion to the book.

[loner]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dehydrator:
Ralph Baskin did a better job with his animated version of the first book. Why couldn't Jackson just pay some drawers to re-create the feel of THIS version? The Animated Version is dark, mean and edgy. No shittin'arse love angle between Aragorn and Arwen here. No idiotic comic relief from the hobits. No out-of-place humor. </font>

Nice to see I'm not the only one who prefers Bakshi's version over Jackson's. While I thoroughly enjoyed the new one (I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10) I still think the animated version's darker theme works better. I just think if Peter Jackson followed that darker pattern completely then his movie would be the masterpiece many were expecting. To me, the comic relief of Merry and Pippin were a severe blow, and I also didn't really care for the Aragorn and Arwen scene either.

And in the animated version, the first meeting between the Hobbits and Aragorn and why they went with him is explained better. Also Boromir's final scene and the one when he tries to take the ring are much more explanatory and effective (and his horn sounded cooler...more war-like).

All in all Peter Jackson's version is very good. There is a lot to like about it. But a few flaws prevent it from being great. That's my opinion on it.

[This message has been edited by loner (edited 12-26-2001).]

[Common Sense Man]

Ive read the books three times and I think the adaptation is great.

Out......

[SIREN30]

Ok, I usually post my comments before I read everyone else's so I don't know what people have said so far but i LOVED THIS MOVIE! I thought it was great fun and full of beautiful characters and jaw-dropping effects. In my humble opinion (see my review at netflix member reviews), I think it's the STAR WARS of this millenium and will eventually obtain the same following. GO SEE IT! I am not a follower of the books, have never read them, but I am sure no one could deny that the movie stands on its own without a doubt.

[SIREN30]

By the way, I give it 8.5/10 and though I am a huge Star Wars fan and really liked the Phantom Menace, I must admit this overshadows that one by a landslide.

[Scorchlord]

::: rolls eyes :::

Yeah, the Fellowship of the Ring is way too happy. Did you people watch the same movie I did? I didn't see any happiness in it after the long expected party! Everything afterwards was dark, fraught with peril, dread, and hopelessness.

And anyone who likes Bakshi's version over Jackson's must be on crack. Ralph Bakshi butchered Tolkien's story like no one ever could.

[ak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:

Ralph Bakshi butchered Tolkien's story like no one ever could.</font>

You got that in one.

[Common Sense Man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
And anyone who likes Bakshi's version over Jackson's must be on crack. Ralph Bakshi butchered Tolkien's story like no one ever could.</font>

Yes if you compare all the previous versions of this tale that have been brought to the screen how could anyone say this is not the best by far!

And I have been hearing rumblings that Ali will pull number one away from FOTR, but after reading Joblo's review I feel more confident that it will soon loose it's appeal.

Out........

[Puck Bond]

Ok...I just saw The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring for the second time last night...I brought my sister along, because I wanted her to see and experience the wonders of Middle-Earth like I had done the thursday prior. I will also add right now that I recieved The Hobbit, The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers for Christmas...the bookstore was out of Return of the King my sister said, so I will pick that up later...I have already started to read The Hobbit and have hardly put it down since. Also I went and bought the soundtrack to the movie today...it is wonderful and I'm listening to it right now...Oh and since I didn't get a calender for X-mas I went and bought a pictures of tolkien calender...oh I also bought a Lord of the Rings poster...am I turning into a fan boy?! I hope not! But I am so consumed with all things Lord of the rings right now..I can't help it.

Now that I have seen the movie twice I can look at it differently than before...in my earlier review I was just simply in awe like alot of people.

I think the first words of the film say it all, and have an uncanny meaning to our world today..."The world has changed" The narration by Cate Blanchett feels important and weighty, it makes you take note, that this world is important and the events that have occured in and our about to occur have meaning. The battle on the slopes of mount doom between the Dark Lord Sauron and his army of orcs between the people of middle earth-humans, elves, dwarfs etc... is so grand and vast, as the camera swoops like a hawk over the legions moving and attacking...but then the action becomes closer more localized...as we see how Sauron loses the ring and his finally defated. This sets up I think a very common theme in the film...it moves from great majestic, open and vast scenes to intimate and small settings enriched with detail.

Once the prologue is over we see the idealic Shire, with its lush, rich and green landscape with rolling hills full of cosy Hobbit holes...

This brings up a question I have...is The Shire the same as Hobbiton? or is Hobbiton a part of The Shire or vice-versa? Is Hobbiton(I assume meaning Hobbit-town) where all the Hobbits live or are there other "Hobbit-towns"?

This peaceful and happy setting gives the audience a feeling of home...a way of life that is in fact worth fighting for. Unlike many fantasy/sorcery genre films there is this part that is happy, lively content...Most fantasy genre films are totally desolate, bare, baron wastelands, with people in constant pain and suffering that it often seems pointless to fight for.

this of course is brought to life by Bilbo's party celebration, the most joyous part for me is when Gandalf is sitting with Bilbo smoking their pipes, and Bilbo blows the smoke ring and Gandalf blows his ship through it. That part got a few chuckles from the audience, but for me seemed so sweet and tender, these feel like old friends Hobbit and Wizard who have known each other for ever...This brings up another central theme of the movie and that is relationships. Sam's loyalty to his Frodo...Gandalf as a sort of father figure or mentor to Frodo...the obvious distaste and mistrust that Dwarves have for Elves. The relationship between Aragorn and Boromir, and probably the most interesting relationship being the ring to every character in the film...especially Bilbo, Frodo and Boromir and to a lesser extent Galadriel and even Gandalf.

Christ if I meander on like this I'll be here all night, sorry for my ramblings...I was just trying to get my thoughts out...

Anyway I think the main reason so many have responded to this film in such a positive way is it is just not a fantasy/adventure film. Movies like Tomb Raider, Star Wars, Harry Potter..and any sort of action film are mainly just vehicles for lots of action, special effects...these films are full of cotny dialogue and cheesy one liners...and that is the main reason this film stands above it. Some might not care for the shakespearean dialogue, but that is the tongue of the books. This is a deep and involving stoy where you care for the characters...you actually give a shit what happens to them...I'll say again my heart was pounding (literally) at the bridge of Khazad-Dun sp? as Gandalf faced The Balrog...I knew what happened having seen the film already but I couldn't help myself...I almost have to force myself to not crying out loudly...its rare that a straight and gritty drama will drive me to tears let alone a fantasy/sword and sorcery epic filled with battles and special effects that can evoke such a powerful emotional response. It's a feeling that resonates and carried me through the rest of the film. afterwards I asked my sister what she thought and her word was intense....and that it is...

Anyway I'm rambling I just have a couple more questions for Tuukka and the other experts...What are The Two Towers I was trying to figure it the second time around is one Saruman's tower Isengard?

Also tell me more about Gondor? Is this the realm of the humans...I heard alot of talk about the King of gondor and its lineage and so on....so I would like to know more about what the human element is all about Boromir and Aragorn's especially...

Did any of this post make sense if not I apologize...

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Trust me, everything was great. I stick to my 9/10 and will give my final review after I see it the 3rd time. And Horror, I mean Fellowship.</font>


Has the DVD come out yet?? http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

lol, yeah its out now. You should go pick it up. But really, I was hoping to get your opinion, because you are such a fan of Harry Potter (as am I) and I wanted to see what you would think of a different kind of fantasy. DVD comes out in August.

[Common Sense Man]

PB,

For someone who has not read the book you seem to have a better than good grasp of the story.

See for all you people out there that say the film doesn't go deep enough, read PB's post I think it does.

As far as your questions I believe The Shire is like a county and Hobbiton is a town. And yes Hobbits live elsewhere but I do think they are in a generalized area not spread all over middle earth.

As far as Gondor goes you will get more of it in the next movies. It is the seat of power for the race of Man, or should I say the ancient seat of power.

Now it has been quite some time since I read the books so I cannot remember if the two towers they are referring to are Isengard and Mordor or not.

I seem to remember that it may be Minus Tirath and Minus Mogul or something like that I do not have a book to reference.

I believe they are the two mirror cities one inside Mordor and the other outside.

But hey I am sure someone who has read it more recently than 10 years ago will enlighten us all.

Enjoy your reading you will find it very hard to put down and I suggest you see the movie again after you finish FOTR as you will gain new insights into the characters.

Out.....

[Ender]

On the subject of Bakshi's movie (which was mangled, but intersting), did anyone else notice that the scene with the Dark Riders at the Prancing Pony seemed (to me, at least) almost identical in both PJ's and the animated version?

[Tuukka]

My thoughts after a second viewing of the film:

For the first two hours I was in total awe of the film. I loved everything about it and the minor complaints I had with the first viewing disappeared. There were occasional minor things directing wise that seemed heavy-handed, but it didn't annoy me at all. However, the film really starts to lose steam after Moria. After that it's "only" a good film. Lothlorien segment is totally unnecessary to the flow of the film, even if the elf city looks gorgeus. The final scenes at Amon Hen are good, but they are visually the least impressive scenes in the film and the action doesn't came even close to the amazing Moria scenes. Boromir's betrayal and death is handled well, but overall the ending lacks punch. There are some great moments in the final hour, but they are far and between.

I do understand that these structural problems come from the book. I think the film REALLY needed a great action pay-off in the end, not just some choppily edited swordfighting. Since there is no real sense of dramatic pay-off in the story, PJ should have added an adrenaline pumping, impressive action piece instead. The film seems to have it's climax at two hour mark, and it goes downhill from there.

I give the first two hours 10/10, but the final hour gets 7/10. The final overall verdict is 9/10. (10+10+7=27. 27:3=9).

Luckily the sequels don't have the structural problems of FOTR, so I think they will offer a more coherent whole. I can't wait to see Sam's battle against Shelob at the end of Two Towers!

Having said that, I think I might see the film in cinema for a third time, althought I will wait for a month or two.

I think that once all the three films are ready and I can watch them all on R-rated DVD as director's cuts, these movies are going to be one of the most amazing achievement in cinema history. As an individual film however, FOTR is a flawed masterpiece. Sometimes it's so great that it hurts, sometimes it's just mediocre.


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-27-2001).]

[Dehydrator]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
::: rolls eyes :::

And anyone who likes Bakshi's version over Jackson's must be on crack. Ralph Bakshi butchered Tolkien's story like no one ever could.</font>

I'm certainly not on crack, I just stick to the point that PJ version is WAY more butchered! ( Arwen & Aragorn ). I know that Jackson had to make some thoughts at how his movie would do at the box office but this is no excuse to force crap like a love angle between Arwen & Aragorn into it!

Peter Jackson is an exeptional filmmaker who could do much better than he actually did. I admit, my expecations were high ( higher than I, myself expected them to be, I just noticed ) but fuck it, it's a movie based on LOTR and not CITY OF ANGELS! Merry & Pippin are Jar Jar Binks, I almost screamed "FUCK YOU!" in the theater when they were cooking food with a fire, knowing that the Nazghoul are after them. And don't get me started on the scene where the break into the conjuring at Elrond's House. This sucks even more if you consider the fact that these two will take big parts in the story. All I saw in the movie were two sobbering idiots with rarely any clue what they are doing.

By the way, both versions left out one of my favorite scenes in the book, the one with Frodo waking up in a hill-grave.

[Tuukka]

Maybe you should watch it as a film, not as a visual companion to the book.

I didn't care much for the comic relief of Merry and Pippin the first time, but on a second viewing it worked very well and improved the film in my opinion. Humour was needed. Gimli had the funniest lines, thought.

The love story of Arwen and Aragorn is lifted from the appendix, so it DID exist in LOTR, Tolkien just never fleshed it out. If I have understood correctly, screenwriters incorporated a different lovestory from Silmarillion and used elements of it combined with the stuff from the appendix. I've never read Silmarillion so I don't know much about it. Worked quite well in the film, thought.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-27-2001).]

[Dehydrator]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Or maybe it just didn't meet *your* interpretation of the book. Some Tolkien purists have said that the film is too dark, too scary, too creepy, too lacking in humour. The exact opposite of what you are saying.

It's a film, not a book. It's PJ's interpretation of the story, not *your* interpretation.

Just watch it as a film, not as a visual companion to the book.</font>

I know that I'm mostely alone on what I say. I never considered myself a Tolkin-Purist (remember that I love the animated version), but I guess now I have to take that burden. I don't care, if Jackson can force a love-angle in "his" interpretation of the book than I may bitch about how much "his" interpretation sucks arse in being compared to "mine"! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif.

Yes, it's a film. But it's a film based on LOTR. And that's the reason why most people see it. Remember 2 years ago, would anybody care to see a Romance between a half-man and an elf-princess? Like: "Who cares about Elves?". The hype surrounding this flick seems to have convinced people that elves are cool and therefore it's cool to see this movie. And therefore it's cool to love this movie. I don't want to offend anyone for jumping on the wagon, we all get subconciously manipulated these days but for christ's sakes READ THE BOOK PEOPLE! My highest (and most unrealistic) hope for this movie was that it would make more people read the book. I don't think it will.

The movie is nothing more than a passable adventure movie but if I want love angles between Elves and half-Elves I swallow magic mushrooms and if I want comic relief characters I watch Jar Jar Binks.

I will see the movie for a second time in the theaters also ( my mum deceided to throw a visit for the whole family ) but I'm actually dreadding this happening. I'm afraid to find more things I will throw my festering spit on...

[Tuukka]

Actually the sales for LOTR have sky-rocketed. It's going to get even better by the beginning of the next year, since in many countries the new prints are not available yet. For example at the biggest internet books store, www.amazon.com, (http://www.amazon.com,) LOTR is FOUR times in the top 15 as different prints (Some include Hobbit as well). Overall 13% of the books sold at Amazon are LOTR.

[confused1]

I had no major problems with the movie, I just think Danny Devito should've been cast as Frodo--they wouldn't have needed any visual effects, he's already 3'6"! (I thought this thread needed some humor)

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Actually the sales for LOTR have sky-rocketed. It's going to get even better by the beginning of the next year, since in many countries the new prints are not available yet. For example at the biggest internet books store, www.amazon.com, (http://www.amazon.com,) LOTR is FOUR times in the top 15 as different prints (Some include Hobbit as well). Overall 13% of the books sold at Amazon are LOTR.</font>

I contributed to some of that business, because ever since I saw the movie I really have taken a HUGE interest in Lord Of The Rings so I received "The Hobbit" (Which was actually my favorite book of all time even before I saw or even heard of FOTR) for Christmas and I baught the whole book set (FOTR, TTT, TROTK) and have just started to read FOTR. But I do have a few questions, Should I read the Prolouge first? Will it help me to understand better what the book is about? Or doesn't it matter??????



[This message has been edited by dicaprio_travolta_man (edited 12-27-2001).]

[LordKaruku]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dehydrator:
I'm certainly not on crack, I just stick to the point that PJ version is WAY more butchered! ( Arwen & Aragorn ). I know that Jackson had to make some thoughts at how his movie would do at the box office but this is no excuse to force crap like a love angle between Arwen & Aragorn into it!
</font>

Ummm.... the love story between Aragorn and Arwen was in the book. Pretty much just how it happens in the movie. Tolkien just moved it to the back since romance wasn't really his thing, but it's all there. And this "forced crap" that Tolkien wrote takes up about 50 seconds of a three hour movie, so I really don't see why it should upset you that much. Would you prefer Aragorn to just randomly marry some woman we've never seen in ROTK?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Merry & Pippin are Jar Jar Binks, I almost screamed "FUCK YOU!" in the theater when they were cooking food with a fire, knowing that the Nazghoul are after them. And don't get me started on the scene where the break into the conjuring at Elrond's House.</font>

Umm... isn't Pippin the one who reveals Frodo's identity in Bree? And isn't Pippin the one who drops the rock down the well in Moria? And doesn't one of them cause a certain bit of trouble with a certain thing from Orthanc later on? Merry and Pippin are just as "idiotic" (or naive) in the books as they are in the movie. And their moments of comic relief occupy probably less than 2 minutes of screentime. How long was Jar Jar Binks around? Far, far, more than that.

Perspective, people. Perspective. The glass is 99% full.

[This message has been edited by LordKaruku (edited 12-27-2001).]

[LordKaruku]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dicaprio_travolta_man:
[B] I contributed to some of that business, because ever since I saw the movie I really have taken a HUGE interest in Lord Of The Rings so I received "The Hobbit" (Which was actually my favorite book of all time even before I saw or even heard of FOTR) for Christmas and I baught the whole book set (FOTR, TTT, TROTK) and have just started to read FOTR. But I do have a few questions, Should I read the Prolouge first? Will it help me to understand better what the book is about? Or doesn't it matter??????
</font>

If by the prologue you mean all the stuff about hobbits and what type of pipeweed they smoke, I'd skip it for now, unless you find yourself fascinated by hobbit pipeweed... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Zed]

This is my first post un the "Current Movie Talk" forum.

I've already saw LOTR twice.

I'm a big fan of the books (a I've have read all five) and I get out of the teather very satisfied.

Some secuels of the movie, (like Bilbo Birthday and Moria mines) are just amazing.

Overall, the movie got an amazing cinematography, an excelent direction and decent performances by the cast.

The movie also gives a lot of "clues" of the upcoming chapters. I really think the Fellowship will look a lot better after the entire trilogy is released.

My grade: 9,5 / 10.

[SubMethod]

I have a question to ask about FOTR.

I read The Hobbit before I went and saw the movie but didn't have time to read FOTR. Now that Ive seen the movie Ive read FOTR. In The Hobbit they talk about the Necromancer. Then, in FOTR they say from what I understand that Sauron was the necromancer. Am I right? Because I wanted to see in the movie or at least read more about the necromancer, but if Sauron was him then I wont get to. Its not that important but I was just wondering.

[Horror whore]

&lt;--------POST 2000!!!!!!


I won two tickets off a radio station for nameing the number one song of the hour!!! They gave me a choice between LOTR or How High What a comparison, eh?)! I'm seeing it Sunday at 4:45...I tell you what I thought Sunday night....

[This message has been edited by Horror whore (edited 12-27-2001).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

woo-hoo!! I knew you would end up seeing it. ....you were the one that said they were gonna wait til it was out of theaters, right?? Well, if not, forget you ever read this.

[Dehydrator]

contains minor spoilers about the next two movies ( or better, the books)


[QUOTE]Originally posted by LordKaruku:
[B] Umm... isn't Pippin the one who reveals Frodo's identity in Bree?

Yes, you are right about that. They just started out and Pippin has not much of an idea what they are doing. He knows some facts on the ring but has NO idea what lies before him. That's naive. I would even be able to let the shit about them cooking with this hughe ass fire go. That borders on the line between naive and deep-ass dumbshittinness.

And isn't Pippin the one who drops the rock down the well in Moria?

Yes you are right. A Rock. Because he's curious ( read: naive ) about how long it may take to hit the bottom. In the movie he throws down a complete desecrated dwarf. Not because he's naive. Because he somehow overlooks that it sits on the well, right before him ( read: stupid ).

And doesn't one of them cause a certain bit of trouble with a certain thing from Orthanc later on?

Yep that's right. But aren't they also supposed to take active parts in the story later on. Like, you know, at Gondor? And doesn't one of them become one of Theodin's Warriors? Maybe Jackson will have Pippin stumble across the Orthanc stone, have him landing in right looking position and tell Sauron stories about Frodo's true mission.
Isn't he naive?

BTW: The story about an elf princess sacreficing her immortality is mentioned as a Legend somewhere in the book but does NOT have anything to do with the (minimally HINTED at) romance between Aragorn and Arven. If I'm not mistaken ( but not really sure ) it's in SIMILARION.
If you were to direct a new version on King's SHINING, would you write a love angle between Wendy and the cook in?

And about that time capsule thing: Remember TAXI DRIVER? There are MINIMAL hints of Travis being not quiet how he is for most of his screen time. But these hints help to understand his actions later on. If I would judge Merry & Pippin from the hints of stupidity the movie displays, I would predict them a big career as rather Orc or Tentacle fodder ( another thing that got me pissed: Why show the guard in the water completely? ).

[Dehydrator]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by confused1:
I had no major problems with the movie, I just think Danny Devito should've been cast as Frodo--they wouldn't have needed any visual effects, he's already 3'6"! (I thought this thread needed some humor)</font>

Dammit Confused, Danny de vito would have ROCKED as BILBO! Serious! But the guy who plays him actually is also good.

[Scorchlord]

Did you even watch the movie? Pippin doesn't "throw the dwarf down the well." His curiosity gets the better of him and he's tinkering with an arrow shaft, and then the chain of events that follows is what causes the body to fall.

And Hobbits are cheerful, jolly folk who have no real cares about the outside world. They tend to forget about all the dreadful things that happen to them pretty quickly, and show their naivete because of it. You're nitpicking big time, and to even compare Merry and Pippin to Jar Jar Binks reeks of extreme cynicism. You need to judge the movie from a movie standpoint and not be such a hardcore book fanatic.

And did you ever maybe consider that PJ made them a little more lighthearted in this film to set up the seriousness of their situations in the next two?

[This message has been edited by Scorchlord (edited 12-28-2001).]

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
woo-hoo!! I knew you would end up seeing it. ....you were the one that said they were gonna wait til it was out of theaters, right?? Well, if not, forget you ever read this.</font>

Well, I'd rather shoot myself in the face than see How High and....IT'S A FREE TICKET!! Woo-hoo!!

[Dehydrator]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scorchlord:
[B]Did you even watch the movie? Pippin doesn't "throw the dwarf down the well." His curiosity gets the better of him and he's tinkering with an arrow shaft, and then the chain of events that follows is what causes the body to fall.

It's an accident caused by stupid behavior. I ment that "throwing" ironical of course.

And Hobbits are cheerful, jolly folk who have no real cares about the outside world. They tend to forget about all the dreadful things that happen to them pretty quickly, and show their naivete because of it. You're nitpicking big time, and to even compare Merry and Pippin to Jar Jar Binks reeks of extreme cynicism. You need to judge the movie from a movie standpoint and not be such a hardcore book fanatic.

I'm NOT a hardcore book fanatic but if there is a movie based on LOTR, then I judge it with the book in the back of my mind.

I'm not wanting to be cynical but if it sounds that way - I don't care. I really tried to like the movie more than I did. It's just how I see it, sorry. And for that "hobbits are naive" stuff : I said it before and I said it again, naivity and stupidity aren't the same. The thing about the hobbits is ( to quote Tukka: "my interpretation") that there is a lot more to them than meets the eye. They are serious characters in the book who serve a big purpose to the story. If anything reeks of cynism than the way Jackson handled them. He made clowns out of Merry and Pippin and they don't deserve a treatment like that. Hope that sounds less cynical.

And did you ever maybe consider that PJ made them a little more lighthearted in this film to set up the seriousness of their situations in the next two?

Well, since half the people I talked about the movie later that night, were either wishing them to fucking die or just laughed at them, I guess he failed in making them any good characters at all. I don't know how many of the worldwide audiences had this reaction to it but everyone I know that saw the movie ( not everyone even having read the book ) found them either FUNNY ( which isn't the point ) or ANNOYING ( which is even less the point ).

[This message has been edited by Dehydrator (edited 12-28-2001).]

[LordKaruku]

**** SPOILERS FOR BOOK TRILOGY

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dehydrator:
Yep that's right. But aren't they also supposed to take active parts in the story later on. Like, you know, at Gondor? And doesn't one of them become one of Theodin's Warriors?</font>

You're right, but those things happen in the second and third parts, and in the first book there is really no hint that Merry and Pippin will rise to these challenges in the future. In Jackson's version they're certainly walking the line between naivety and buffoonery, but I feel Jackson did this intentionally to make Merry and Pippin's transformation into taking on serious responsibility later on more significant, just as he played up Gandalf's age (e.g. head-bumping) to make Gandalf the White all that more impressive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW: The story about an elf princess sacreficing her immortality is mentioned as a Legend somewhere in the book but does NOT have anything to do with the (minimally HINTED at) romance between Aragorn and Arven. If I'm not mistaken ( but not really sure ) it's in SIMILARION.</font>

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one... the Aragorn/Arwen romance is most assuredly in the book. I grabbed my copy of Return of the King off the shelf and it's on pages 337-344, in a section entitled "Here Follows a Part of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen." It tells all about how they meet, their romance, her giving up her immortality, and what happens to them after the end of ROTK. Their story does mirror that of some characters in the Silmarillion, but Tolkien certainly did write the romance between Aragorn and Arwen, even if he chose not to include it in the main body of the text but as an addition.[/B][/QUOTE]

[Dehydrator]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by LordKaruku:
**** SPOILERS FOR BOOK TRILOGY

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one... the Aragorn/Arwen romance is most assuredly in the book. I grabbed my copy of Return of the King off the shelf and it's on pages 337-344, in a section entitled "Here Follows a Part of the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen." It tells all about how they meet, their romance, her giving up her immortality, and what happens to them after the end of ROTK. Their story does mirror that of some characters in the Silmarillion, but Tolkien certainly did write the romance between Aragorn and Arwen, even if he chose not to include it in the main body of the text but as an addition.</font>[/B][/QUOTE]

CONTAINS MORE BOOK SPOILERS

Seems like I have to half-apologize for my bitching about that scene, therefore I do so.
I haven't got the books in reach but I guess I'll believe you. Which brings me to why I said "half/apologize": If Tolkin knew that this story wasn't serving any purpose in the actual novel, what has riddin Jackson to put it in a movie that leaves out a lot of things more important? And, much more important : What about poor Mrs. Eowyn? The fact that Aragorn is in love with Arven ( and everyone that saw the movie knows that ) will take any suspense out of the REAL love angle ( the one that is in the book ). I don't think Tolkin put the story of Aragorn and Arwen at the End of the book for no reason. In Jackson's movie I feel like he felt the need to slap a love story in the movie ( and a pretty bad one, not only serving no purpose at all for the story but also stopping the movie dead and giving Liv Tyler more screen time ) to make the movie more "accessible" to the general movie goers. That SUCKS. The closest thing Aragorn and Arwen get to do is looking at one another. ( and of course the prophecy about the paths of the dead which gets transmitted from her to him later ). Even If I'm alone on that one : Jackson has no right to move an addition ( as you said ) from the book to a centerpiece in the movie. Even if it wasn't for moneymaking reasons, it would still suck hard.

On Merry & Pippin : See what I wrote at the end of my last post.

[LordKaruku]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dehydrator:
Well, since half the people I talked about the movie later that night, were either wishing them to fucking die or just laughed at them, I guess he failed in making them any good characters at all. I don't know how many of the worldwide audiences had this reaction to it but everyone I know that saw the movie ( not everyone even having read the book ) found them either FUNNY ( which isn't the point ) or ANNOYING ( which is even less the point ).</font>

I think the fact that they are funny is certainly the point of Merry and Pippin in the movie of FOTR. They, along with Gimli, provide comic relief to lighten up the otherwise deadly serious nature of the film. Audiences will give up on a film if tension is sustained for too long. In the later films they will be developed more, just as they are in the books. And annoyance is just a matter of opinion... of the dozen or so people I saw it with, only one of them disliked M&P in the movie. I still maintain that Merry and Pippin are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less annoying than Jar Jar Binks, not even in or near the same league.

As for Eowyn... she does not appear in FOTR. And wouldn't not having Arwen in the movie just confuse people as to why he wasn't getting together with Eowyn in TTT? Arwen appears for the minimum amount of time possible to establish a film romance... the two have only one lovey-dovey scene which is about a minute long. Without Arwen, the Eowyn story doesn't make sense. Arwen's replacing Glorfindel for the Flight to the Ford can be argued, but I think her presence in the film is vitally important to set up Aragorn's character in the second and third film.

[This message has been edited by LordKaruku (edited 12-28-2001).]

[Horror whore]

Well, I just got back from LOTR: FOTR and I must say...My ass is numb! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/tongue.gif The theater was packed with annoying little kids and immature teenage boys. (At the beginning that lady said "The earth was changing, I could feel it in my heart," and then some dumbass says "I can feel it in my pants, baby!")

I liked LOTR. The special effects were great. The directing was great. The acting was good. Basically everything was good. I didn't like the beginning in The Shire though...I thought the whole fireworks crap could have been left out. I'm gonna rate the movie by each hour.

Hour One: I found it a little boring and draggy. Still good, but I think they could have made The Shire a little shorter. The first hour gets a 6/10...

Hour Two: I loved this part. Even though a lot of names and stuff went over my head this was the best part of the film. The Mines Of Moria (is that how it's spelled?) was amazing. There was action, adventure, humor, and some people cried. The second hour gets a 10/10...

Hour Three: Very action packed, but you can only kill an Orc so many ways before it gets old. I did like when they were sailing past the arm switching statues (anyone else see that?). It was kind of sad, but nothing that made me cry. I'd give the third hour a 8/10...

Peter Jackson better get an Oscar for his great directing...

6+10+8=24
24 divided by 3 = 8


8/10

[This message has been edited by Horror whore (edited 12-29-2001).]

[Ender]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dehydrator:
CONTAINS MORE BOOK SPOILERS

Jackson has no right to move an addition ( as you said ) from the book to a centerpiece in the movie</font>

Well, actually, yes, he does have that right. He's the director, after all, and as such he is entitled to take a few creative liberties with the story. It's to be expected, and in the long run, there are much worse things that Jackson could have done to the story than to shift a scene or two around. In fact, if he wanted to include the love angle, he would have to move it, because you really can't tell a huge chunk of story like that out of sequence at the end of the third film. The audience would find it confusing and irritating, as well as anticlimactic.

[This message has been edited by Ender (edited 12-29-2001).]

[Scorchlord]

Horror, there's no way PJ could have left the fireworks out. The Tolkien fans would have crucified him.

[Dark Prince]

The Lord of the Rings is my new fabourite movie!

[Common Sense Man]

Well as I have said in the past I have read the books several times but I have not had copies in years.

So I too have put my money where my mouth is and purchased the 4 book boxed set.

I have not started reading them yet but did read the notes before FOTR and I must admit it was very enlightening.

Some may know this so if you do I apologize, but I think it can shed some light on the whole romance thread.

Tolkien published the Hobbit in the late 30's I believe and then wanted to go back and work on the history before the Hobbit took place. But the fans wanted more so he shifted gears and began working on LOTR.

I found a comment that was made very interesting.

It said that LOTR is one book not a Trilogy. Something I have stated before about the movies. They are more like one movie in three chapters.

They even began publishing the book in one volume after ROTK came out. It was Tolkiens original vision for the book.

But they said he was so concerned with the history of the land he created that he was attempting to make appendixes of all that he talked about in the books. The appendixes would reference family lines, and things he did not have time to put into the books.

He worked on the appendixes for over twenty years and at his death they where still not completed to his liking and his son took over.

I can see how if he had been able to work on the background material like he wanted to originally maybe the story would have been more inclusive and the romance aspects would have been a bigger part of the book.

But I think it is totally valid for PJ to take anything in the appendix and use it in the films as that is what Tolkien spent the majority of his time working on.

Oh just another tid bit I found interesting. It said that many printers edited the book before they set the type. Because they thought he had spelled things wrong! a linguist!

They changed things like Dwarves to Dwarfs, Further to Farther, etc, etc the list is long.

I guess it took decades to hunt down all the errors and older versions are full of them.

They say that the original British leather bound copy is still the best but has errors.

The set I bought was supposedly copied off this mostly correct copy.

I guess Christopher Tolkien is still working on this problem.

How pissed would you have been to work 20 years on something to find out that some printer had changed your work! Ouch.

Out......

[Scorchlord]

Gotta love the Bible-thumping close-minded would-be Osamas if they could at CAP Alert:

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm

[Ender]

Thanks for the link, Scorch, that was good for a laugh. I always love when flicks like LOTR or even Harry Potter become hits, because with every dollar that rolls in I can imagine Jerry Falwell inching closer to that early grave he's dug for himself. Honestly, do these people actually believe their own garbage? Well, we've all had this debate before, I guess, so I shouldn't stoke the fires...

[Eelco]

You know, I didn't really find it that irritating, that lovescene between Aragorn and Arwen. Although I'm not really a fan of Liv Tyler (mostly because of Armageddon), she does a pretty good actingjob in this film. I give this movie a 9,5 because of some flaws (I read the books twice). If I hadn't read the books I would give it a 10. Peter Jackson made quite a few alterations in the story, although he stayed pretty faithfull to the "spirit" of the book. My biggest problems with this first installment were:
1) The journey from Hobbittan (correctly
spelled?) to Bree and Rivendel went on
too fast. It was also too focussed on the
nine ringwraithes. How Pippin and Merry
joined Frode & Sam wasn't very nicely
done. I mean, they just joined Sam &
Frodo without backpacks and stuff (only
stolen food). I missed the woods & Tom
Bombadill a lot. Furthermore, there was
no short explanation of the three
cavetrolls that were turned to stone in
one scene in the film (see "The Hobbit").
The Weathertop sequence was also too
short.
2) No explanation was given to why Gimli
hated elves (like Legolas) so much. At
the end of the movie they were suddenly
befriended.
3) The journey after the mines of Moria was
better done than the journey from The
Shire to Rivendel. Some scenes were too
short (Lothorien sequence for instance)
or very different from the book. I would
have liked it if there was one scene
(like the one in Apocalypse Now!) where
the fellowship is attacked while they are
in there boats (with arrows and other
stuff, just like in the book).
4) Some special effects weren't very well
done. For instance, when the fellowship
leaves the mines of Moria, you can
clearly see that each member is
computeranimated. It also looks like as
if they are walking some inches above the
ground. This kind of thing, the walking
above the ground, I saw a few times in
the movie.
All in all, there are a couple of flaws, but it still is a fun movie to watch. Boromir dies in "The Two Towers", but it was good of Peter Jackson that he put his death in the first installment, because it makes a better ending than the one that is in the book. Can't wait to see the next two installments!

[Dehydrator]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
Gotta love the Bible-thumping close-minded would-be Osamas if they could at CAP Alert:

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm</font>

These guys are creepy...but they entertained me quite well for the last 15 minutes.

[This message has been edited by Dehydrator (edited 12-30-2001).]

[profound]

Eelco, I don't think the trolls that were turned to stone needed to be explained. It really had no relevance to the plot.

From my point of view I saw it as one of the many little things that Peter Jackson put into the movie to add a little something for people familiar with Tolkien's books.

Much like the way some of the book chapter titles were integrated into the dialogue.

[Scorchlord]

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a deleted scene that explains them in more detail. I remember a pic from a while ago that showed one of them.

[FlickJunkie]

I finally saw LOTR today and I liked it, it was a good movie, but it is overrated. I'd rate it a 7/10.

In short, the sets were amazing and the visuals were nice to look at. And the acting and direction are really good for a fantasy film.

At some parts I was bored, unfortunately, like quiet parts where the characters explained the plot and all, I found a bit boring and they used slow-motion a bit too much. The ending also left something to be desired, I thought they would destroy the ring and then the other two movies were about something else related to the characters, like whatever the Two Towers are and the Return of the King was about.

But I was entertained for the most part during the films duration and I am eagerly anticipating and looking forward to what happens in the next two parts. This is like watching one-third of a nine hour movie.

I also wouldn't mind watching this film again. Because, maybe my thoughts about the film will change, but for now it's a 7/10.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

You should definately see it again - people uninitiated with Middle-Earth will get ALOT more out of the movie; theur is alot os sublety, and hidden things that take more than one viewing to notice.

[Dachande]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
Gotta love the Bible-thumping close-minded would-be Osamas if they could at CAP Alert:

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/lordofrings_fellowship.htm</font>


I was laughing when he kept saying the orcs were unholy walking dead Demons, lol.

[FlickJunkie]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this movie today, since seeing it, and I've decided to up my grade from a 7/10 to an 8/10. I think it's better than a 7/10 and still want to see it again as well as the concluding two parts, I think it's good that they ended the movie the way they did, it leaves you wanted more. I hope The Two Towers ends the same way, leaving the third part open.

[Common Sense Man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FlickJunkie:
I thought they would destroy the ring and then the other two movies were about something else related to the characters, like whatever the Two Towers are and the Return of the King was about. </font>

Boy have you got a lot to look forward to, this is not your normal story. It is not even your normal trilogy as it is really only one big epic.

It makes me smile to think of what a 3 hour movie that tried to encompass all the books would look like. Whew!

Sit back and enjoy the ride you have some big surprises to come.

Oh and about the Trolls, they did explain them at the beginning when Bilbo is talking to the Hobbit kids.

I thought it was a fantastic touch to see them in the background, I did not even notice them until I saw it the second time.

Oh and it is good to be back after being unregistered by some mysterious bug in the system.

Out........

[Ender]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eelco:

2) No explanation was given to why Gimli
hated elves (like Legolas) so much. At
the end of the movie they were suddenly
befriended.
</font>

I generally just chalked that up to Dwarves not being particularly fond of anyone, except of course, other Dwarves.

[Scorchlord]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FlickJunkie:
I hope The Two Towers ends the same way, leaving the third part open.</font>


It does and it doesn't. The Ring isn't destroyed until the end of Return of the King. There isn't so much of a "cliffhanger" ending, because you know where the characters are and where they're going, and they're generally together.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

I disagree Scorchlord. The next film will definately have more of a cliff-hanger ending than the first.


MAJOR SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The second film ends with Frodo being "killed" and than Sam taking the Ring, and realizing that Frodo is alive, but taken by the enemy. And Minas Tirith is about to be assulted. That is definately going to kick ass.

[P0LaRiS]

352 more days until The Two Towers...

[Dehydrator]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ender:
I generally just chalked that up to Dwarves not being particularly fond of anyone, except of course, other Dwarves.</font>

For more insight on dwarfs I think everyone who's just starting to read the book is recommended to read THE HOBBIT first. You'll have less confusion trying to understand them in LOTR.

[Common Sense Man]

By Sujit Chawla of www.boxofficeguru.com (http://www.boxofficeguru.com)

THIS WEEKEND With 2002 right around the corner, Frodo and company led the last box office of 2001, as The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring trounced its competitors, rallying up another $37.3M for the Friday-Sunday portion of New Year's weekend, according to estimates. So far, Rings has conjured up $154M in only 2+ weeks. With a still potent per screen average of over $11,000, Rings has a very, very bright future ahead of it.

Rock on!

And go here to read a review by a confessed Hairy Potter fan, we will convert you all!!!!

www.wolfpackproductions.com/TheChiefReport/ (http://www.wolfpackproductions.com/TheChiefReport/)

Out........


[This message has been edited by Common Sense Man (edited 01-01-2002).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Maybe not ALL, but most.

[Tuukka]

The wordwide B.O was 310.7 million by Monday evening.

[Common Sense Man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Maybe not ALL, but most.</font>

Yes All! I will soon be adding the requisite additive to your water!

Just saw FOTR for the third time tonight in a packed theater, and I think I enjoyed this viewing the best out of all so far.

I was able to simply watch the flick this time and not feel I was missing things by not seeing every effect in every scene.

And I wanted to address some of the flaws that have been posted as mistakes in this thread.

Someone said that Bill the pony was not in any of the wide shots as they traveled, and suddenly shows up at Moria, not true.

He is in all the wide shots.

Also someone said the statues are backwards in the reverse angle shot, that they each have their left hands raised but in the reverse shot one has his right hand raised.

Nope, the left statue in the reverse angle does have his left hand raised but the arm is so long that his hand appears to be coming out of his right shoulder.

And I remember asking about Boromir's Horn as it seemed to only appear at his death, but yes it was there in a couple of other earlier scenes.

I also remembered asking if Aragorn has Boromir's horn after his death, well that was my mistake as the horn is split in two during the Orc attack when he dies.

The reason I mention this is that if you look in the boat before he goes over the falls you can see the horn in two pieces at his side, and people think PJ does not pay attention to detail!

Yes there are a few mistakes but there always are in any movie but those I mentioned where so glaring I knew they could not be true. And they where not.

Just a thought I have been having about Gandalf and his sword. I noticed it featured prominently on his hip in Moria and of course on the bridge, I just wish they would have stated the name at least once, it is just so cool!

Glamdring - The Foe Hammer

Can't wait to see him chop some Orc in the TT.

Out.......

[Tuukka]

Many have wondered how Gandalf got his staff back from Orthanc. He didn't, it's a different stuff after Rivendell (Apparently theonering.net has pictures where you can compare the two staffs. Haven't checked them). So it wasn't a continuity error.

[Cosine]

Just saw FOTR for the second time, possible more enthralled than the first time. Favorite points:

1. Galadriel/Galadriel's Freak Out: well done, scary as hell and so REAL in character traits

2. Boromir/Boromir's Last Stand: along with Galadriel my choice for best drawn character, how I cried.

3. Sam: Sam's devotion is a beautiful thing to see, and to think I doubted Sean Astin's abilities.

Just because I didn't mention a certain scene or character doesn't mean I didn't like it/them, just wanted to point out a few current favorites.

There were few things that I didn't like but if I have to name a couple then:

Elrond: Hugo Weaving is a solid actor so how come Elrond's voice is so similar to Agent Smith's voice from the Matrix, I was just waiting for Elrond to say "Mr. Anderson" Hugo is australian so why did he feel the need to adopt the same american accent in two films?

Merry and Pippin: Love the guys but thought they could be a little less silly and their relationship with Frodo/Sam could have been better defined, seems like they are just taggin along.

Anyways let me know some of your favorites, I'm going to see it again tomorrow night.

3.

[Common Sense Man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Many have wondered how Gandalf got his staff back from Orthanc. He didn't, it's a different stuff after Rivendell (Apparently theonering.net has pictures where you can compare the two staffs. Haven't checked them). So it wasn't a continuity error.</font>

Yah I never saw this as a problem either, as HELLO he is a Wizard how hard would it be for him to make another one.

Plus that is just nitpicking for something to rail about.

It rocked and I will be seeing it again next week for the 4th time.

Out....

[Digital_FILO]

i like this movie a lot!
it is pretty cool, Frodo and Arwen are the best!