What Did You Guys Think Of.........The Lord Of The Ring : The Fellowship Of The Ring?

[Jerk Shapiro]

Good movie...good movie...good movie.

This story is apart of the trilogy of books by J.R.R Tolkien. It follows the story of Frodo...A small hobbit creature...who must destroy a ring ( The One Ring ) so all of Middle-Earth will not be enslaved... It is a perilious journey...filled full of dangerous foes and other bad stuff...Overall, a great story...plus movie.

Maniac: 9/10

One point off for being too looooooong...

[Michael Corleone]

There's not much wrong with it, per se (except for the long running time and the incredibly fake looking cave troll). Anyway, I just wasn't fascinated by this world, I thought it moved slowly in some scenes, and most of the characters annoyed me more then they amused me. Some of it seemed very unbelievable to me (I know, I know, it's a fantasy film and it isn't supposed to be "real", but look at some of the obvious things here; the camera shows Sam going deep into the water at the end, but, yet, Frodo who is very small and doesn't have arms that long reaches deep down and grabs Sam without leaving the boat and someone gets hit in the heart with an arrow not once, but 3 or 4 times and doesn't die until the last shot). I didn't connect with most of these charactes and didn't much care what happened to them or the "one ring". To me there weren't enough fascinating moments to fill the entire 3 hour running time. I did, however, love the performances from Ian Mckellen, Viggo Mortensen, and Ian Holm (they played the only characters that I actually connected with). The score and visuals were great but, the laughable Oscar-winning cinematography was basically just generic epical pretty pictures (the same thing you see over and over and over again in all epics). In my mind, a truly great film is one that gives me characters who I can connect with, an engaging story that will keep my attention throughout, and one that is so memorable that I'm still thinking about it long after I saw it. LOTR didn't do any of that for me.

Final Grade: * 1/2 (out of 5)

P.S. I've defended my position once before:

http://www.joblo.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/001632.html

[Reigh Kaufman]

I'm the same as Michael Corleone. I was at the first showing at my cineam and, about half way through, felt utterly bored. Great cast, SFX, script, director, and so on...but not my cup of tea at all.

[MoNsTeR]

comparing MICHAEL CORLEONE's review and MOVIE-MANIAC's... i liked Maniac's more!

MICHAEL... dude, hehehh.. lighten up. you're not in a civil court or whatever to prove you don't like the movie. you have your right to your own opinion. i just think most of the things you've discussed are pretty petty. like the little things regarding SAM drowning and BOROMIR getting shot in the heart four times (which i think is rediculous knowing that he got shot in four different places).

but connecting with the characters and the significance of the ring was rather weak. i agree with you there. but the cave troll? c'mon, what other movie out there had a cave troll? and, have we really seen an actual cave troll to seriously know if that's what it would look like? HARRY POTTER's cave troll was laughable compared to LOTR:FOTR. in MY OPINION, it looked and felt realistic, especially when FRODO was dodging the troll behind a pillar.

honestly, you don't really back up your arguments with significant information regarding your opinion. not all "epic" movies are like LOTR, and compared to whoever was nominated for that oscar, i think LOTR deserved it. if you don't see and understand how LOTR deserved that oscar, then you can't see anything. you're pretty much narrow minded. i bet you think ELIJIAH WOOD and the other HOBBITS are actually small, and Middle Earth is nothing but CGI. and when you said that it was "laughable", that's just a plain insult to art and to the creators who made the movie's characters believable.

to prevent another case of defending your opinion, i think you should re-edit your whole poster. if people had problems with it before, what do you think would happen if you posted the same one like it again? it's a little too redundant don't you think?

visually, the movie's beautiful.. storywise.. it's pretty weak, yet again, it's the first installment of an entire trilogy.

8/10

//out.

oh yea, it's never too late to get your GED.

[Horror whore]

Great script, actors, director, etc.... It's all been said before. But most of the effects did blow. I don't give a flying fuck how hard it is to create an orc, A.I. should have won the Oscar. And many consider it the best thing since sliced bread, I don't.

8/10

[ak]

The Fellowship Of The Ring, in my opinion, is a fantastic film. The reasons have been listed by many, over and over again, and I have nothing to add in depth, apart from saying that the cinematography is the greatest I've ever seen, the acting was mostly very good, the story engaging and the score superior. I prefered the book, but as a film FOTR is exceptional.

As for the special effects? An often discussed subject of the film that seemingly attracts more negative opinions than postive. Me? Well, I'd say the effects on the whole were good, often brilliant, but you could tell they were sparing the budget, and that time was limited (Looking at the dvd now, some of the effects look worryingly dated after just one year - The birds-eye shots of Orthanc in particular).

FOTR is the first part in what will probably become the greatest trilogy in cinema history. It's classic. And it certainly shall get better and better...

8.5/10



[This message has been edited by ak (edited 09-06-2002).]

[dr.gorman]

I absolutly hated this movie. And just like any other schmoe I will give me my reasons. I will first start off by saying I had never ever read the books in my life or had any other contact with LOTR up until the day I saw it. Let me first start off with the acting. I thought the acting was atrocious because it was so ultra-serious acting (like in the form of Mommie Dearerst (sp?) and Valley of the Dolls). Elijah Wood's "English accent" was the worst accent I ever seen since Newsies. Sean Astin and Liv Tyle I thought were bad too. As for McKellan (whos performance didn't deserve an Oscar nod), Mortesen, and Blanchett they were ok. I also hated the dialogue. Christopher Lee was the only one who impressed me. I thought it was so unrealistic the lines that were said in the movie (ex. "If you want him, come and claim him"). When I go to a movie no matter what genre, I don't expect to hear this Medievel time dialogue crap. As for the EFX, they were mediocore (the worst was the Cave Troll). The cinematography didn't impress one bit, the lighting in some scenes was horrible (ex. Blanchett's lighting for her character), which led me to say this is one of the worst movies ever made. Hopefully the sequels will be better.

2/10

PS This is my opinion

[This message has been edited by dr.gorman (edited 09-06-2002).]

[Curiousalien]

It was very good, no guns though http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif


[This message has been edited by Curiousalien (edited 09-06-2002).]

[ak]

Hey, I know it's your opinion, but in truth, I really don't think FOTR is one of the worst films of all time. Quite the opposite in fact.....You just say that cause it was such a high profile film, and in people's minds - the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

You didn't like the film, and that's perfectly acceptable, but to call it one of the worst films of all time when Russ Meyers' films still exist is unforgivable.....oh, let's not forget about Batman and Robin.

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 09-06-2002).]

[dr.gorman]

The reason why I saw its one of the worst ever made is because it was treated like a high-profile film (ex. best movie ever, perfect movie etc etc), so I decided that it would only be fair if I went to it with expectations of it being a high profile film (I did the same thing for Goodfellas when I rented but I dont think its the best mob movie ever made like a few people say) and since I was sooooooooo disappointed in LOTR Im treating like it how I do.

[ak]

I really don't understand your argument.

If you were disappointed with the film, then why not just say you were disappointed? To place the title "worst film of all time" is a very strong thing to do. I can tell you now that it would not be where it is today if it were the worst film ever, and the next two parts would not be garnering as much interest if, as in your opinion, the first film was a complete failure.
Personal hype is a single person's problem most of the time. I was hyped for the film, but not to an extent where it would spoil any of the experience.

As for there being no guns? Yip, I think we should have seen Gandalf and Saruman opening fire on eachother with some A8-47s instead of using those daft canes!



[This message has been edited by ak (edited 09-06-2002).]

[Curiousalien]

Now that would be a movie!!!! with slow-mo and doves!!! and a car chase!!! wow i love guns in films, that was what was lacking from "billy eliot" and "you've got mail"


OK!!!! i dont really think it should have had guns in it, as for the effects yes they do look dated but this was not made as "the greatest SFX since starwars!" this was the best fantasy adventure film that we were all waiting for, yes Good effects could have made the film that slight bit better, but it was the story of the film that was the selling point. unlike another certain "saga" that seems to ONLY use SFX when it could have just used carboard cuts outs for better effects.

WHats wrong with a bit of plot in a film, "OH THE ENDING WAS PISH POOR!" its part of a trilogy we know that it continues so why bother giving it the great ending? wait until you watch the next two when they come to a close and the ending still suck then you can complain. The acting was Bad in some places (frodo's accent I agree on)
but the fighting scenes were good, and as for "the guy not dying after being shot 4 times with arrows it was not a shot gun, his heart may have been puntured but it was only a small hole, I "think" he was shot in the stomach first anyway.

everybody can find faults in any film its easy, i loved this film, and can easily find things that are wrong with it, its not hard, but the plot and the idea that it projects is the most important thing. It was also alot better than some of the crap that we are expected to watch from hollywood.

[dr.gorman]

My argument is that what people say about a movie will also tell me how I should judge it. In the case of Lord of the Rings, people were saying its the best ever, its perfect etc so I went it that movie expecting what these people said about the movie to be true. And you know what, all the stuff the people said was great about the movie I didn't find the least bit good. A good example is like The Phantome Menace. Everyone was so hyped about the movie that they expected it to exceed their expectations and when they saw it and were disappointed, they trashed this film so hard that it exploded the the toliet.
Any movie can be considered the worst movie of all time because it is only opinion.

[Curiousalien]

I kind of agree with you on the "its just my opinion" idea,
I HATED face/off, all my friends would argue with me for ages about why it "rocked" but it sucked and no matter how many times i watched it it would not get better, (many of them hate it as well now) Some films people just dont like, especially when they are supposed to be great,

[EBastard]

Up until 2 weeks ago,I was never into LOTR,I thought it was for dorks,and didn't plan on being into LOTR...now I can't fucking wait for The Two Towers.

LOTR:TFOTR-A

[Tuukka]

When I go to a movie no matter what genre, I don't expect to hear this Medievel time dialogue crap.

RE: This is interesting, since I actually *do* expect to hear medieval dialogue as opposed to modern dialogue when I go to see a medieval film. And LOTR quite obviously is a "medieval" film since the technology, costumes, locations etc. are all pretty much medieval by their nature.

[bluntman86]

I was never a fan of it until it came out as a movie. I had never even heard of the books and I still ended up liking it for the most part. It was a decent movie with absolutely beautiful special effects. It's not as good as most people say it is but overall, it was pretty cool.

[This message has been edited by bluntman86 (edited 09-09-2002).]

[Horror whore]

I like this thread, do I'm gonna give it a big, fat BUMP!

(We still haven't heard from Dumb-Fokker, http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif)

[stevenscotland]

i had never read the book so i wasnt a fan but the trailer looked good so i was looking forward to the movie.I was disappointed overall,the film was very pretty but thats its only good point.The battle scenes were repetative and unbelievable,i mean the heroes were always outnumbered 100 to 1 yet always came out alive and escaped.it just got monotanous IMO

[Scarface98.9]

When you think of the total budget for the trilogy, 300M, 3 films, comes out to roughly 100M for each movie. Now when u think of other 100M+ movies Hollywood has made, Men in Black 2, Harry Potter, Pearl Harbor, Planet of the Apes, Rollerball, etc. it all makes this movie the best 100M movie in Hollywood history. I really liked this movie, a 8-9/10, and recalls the old, classic epics from Hollywood's Golden Age to me.

In the case of Lord of the Rings, people were saying its the best ever, its perfect etc so I went it that movie expecting what these people said about the movie to be true

This was your first mistake. Read reviews if you want, but you'll enjoy many movies more if you keep low expectations for everything. Even if Jesus Christ made a movie, expect to watch crap since personal-hype ruins many people's enjoyment of movies

[TheRock]

An amazing and believe it, underrated film imo. It's the best fantasy film ever made(although it may not have that title long with Two Towers coming out soon). I hate to bring up Star Wars but this movie is on par with the Original Star Wars trilogy. I can't fathom people complaining about the fx in this film. Yes they're not perfect but they're well above average across the board(even the cave troll..I mean come on, compare the Harry Potter Troll to the LOTR one). The acting was solid to great all-around. But the best thing about the film and what makes it classic, the story! Hello, George Lucas, Talk to Peter Jackson on how to make the story the focus and not the special fx the story. I don't see how anyone could hate this film, it may not be your cup of tea, but this story's production is first rate. And to those who hate this movie because it's too long and boring and you couldn't understand how little midget guys could exist and complain about "the good guys outnumbered but survive scenario" that's been used in countless other 1000's of films(including Star Wars) and that the story takes itself to seriously(don't get this complaint), you're probably the reason Swimfan is number 1 at the box office. 9.5/10

[JCPhoenix]

I liked it, but didn't love it so much. I agree generally with the others who have said that it was too long - it was...for me, anyway. I was watching in theatres with my cousins, and it was great at first, but stretched on and on. (I have read the trilogy by the way).

Anyway, it was a solid and good film, not amazingly spectacular.
7/10

P.S. I am still looking forward to The Two Towers however. That will hopefully be amazing, and the major stunning epic I was hoping FOTR to be.

[This message has been edited by JCPhoenix (edited 09-10-2002).]

[Michael Corleone]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by MoNsTeR:
comparing MICHAEL CORLEONE's review and MOVIE-MANIAC's... i liked Maniac's more!

MICHAEL... dude, hehehh.. lighten up. you're not in a civil court or whatever to prove you don't like the movie. you have your right to your own opinion. i just think most of the things you've discussed are pretty petty. like the little things regarding SAM drowning and BOROMIR getting shot in the heart four times (which i think is rediculous knowing that he got shot in four different places).

but connecting with the characters and the significance of the ring was rather weak. i agree with you there. but the cave troll? c'mon, what other movie out there had a cave troll? and, have we really seen an actual cave troll to seriously know if that's what it would look like? HARRY POTTER's cave troll was laughable compared to LOTR:FOTR. in MY OPINION, it looked and felt realistic, especially when FRODO was dodging the troll behind a pillar.

honestly, you don't really back up your arguments with significant information regarding your opinion. not all "epic" movies are like LOTR, and compared to whoever was nominated for that oscar, i think LOTR deserved it. if you don't see and understand how LOTR deserved that oscar, then you can't see anything. you're pretty much narrow minded. i bet you think ELIJIAH WOOD and the other HOBBITS are actually small, and Middle Earth is nothing but CGI. and when you said that it was "laughable", that's just a plain insult to art and to the creators who made the movie's characters believable.

to prevent another case of defending your opinion, i think you should re-edit your whole poster. if people had problems with it before, what do you think would happen if you posted the same one like it again? it's a little too redundant don't you think?

visually, the movie's beautiful.. storywise.. it's pretty weak, yet again, it's the first installment of an entire trilogy.

8/10

//out.

oh yea, it's never too late to get your GED.</font>

Thanks for the kind words http://www.joblo.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif. Normally, I would be more than happy to discuss this film and my dislike for it, but when someone says that I'm "blind" and "narrow minded" just because I didn't like the same film as them than I have no time for that person nor a discussion.

P.S. I won't "re-edit my entire post" just because I have a different opinion and might be confronted about that opinion. If someone wants to confront me, well, than they can just go right ahead and do that. I'm not afraid of people who confront me.


[This message has been edited by Michael Corleone (edited 09-10-2002).]

[MoNsTeR]

you're probably not afraid to be confronted online! heheh.. but eh who cares... that was like.. weeks ago?

um.. but i was talking about the way you don't back up your opinions with relevant arguments. dude.. it's like saying... "i don't like The Little Mermaid because it's impossible to swim without gills" or some crap like that. you can pretty much say what you want to say... but there is no reason for you to back up your opinions with previous posts. that's kind of pathetic in a way. eh.. but that's you, and.. you ahem.. re-edit your posts anyway.. and.. that's even more pathetic! hahahahha.. yawn.

[This message has been edited by Michael Corleone (edited 09-10-2002).]


see!

//out.

ps. you don't even put up a good fight.. what a waste of.. um... 2 minutes?

[kame]

I've watched 8 times in the theathers. I think I've made my point. =D

[Linus*likes*noise]

Amazing!!!

My car was broken into while I was in the theater!!!!

I guess it was a long movie, and a good lesson to always lock your car doors when seeing a film.

[Movie Hunter]

No no no ... this is the first thread i open since i came back and since the board came back with this new GREAT outfit :) (Good Work Joblo)....

guyz i got sick and tired from hearing people ranting ON & ON about LOTR:FOTR , well since i signed up here ... a year ago or something ... i witnessed every fight , Opinion about LOTR ..what people Dont understand is that this movie isnt for Everyone ... it can catch the interest of 2 Groups of people.

1) people Who read the books & Love it

2 People Who like Fantasy movies ...

it is also directed to the bigger audience .. some kids may like it BUT only for the cool Action scenes NOT the plot...

So if u like Fantasy , you WILL love it (like me :) )

that is the last thing i will say about FOTR ... for this argument is far from over .. i will save my words for the Second Installment "TTT" ...then I`ll know which side im with

M.H :D

[mattjk_17]

A brilliant movie, there's no doubt of that. Fellowship was so good the first time I watched it again 24 hours later. I really can't wait for parts 2 and 3. Jackson did a tremendous job with part 1 and I just can't wait for December 19th now!

FOTR: 9.5/10

[Jason Voorhees]

Great film; A sweeping story, gorgeous visuals, great acting, and some great fight scenes make for a highly enjoyable film.

[Mast]

The sets and props were the best I've seen. All the armour, weapons, etc. were authentically hand crafted, and the gardens were planted a year ahead of filming in order to have them look realistic. The cast do a great job, although Samwise Gamgee is all too assertive compared to the book character.

It's a pretty picture, too; the scenery and cinematography are fantastic! The soundtrack lends a reasonable ambience and fits pretty well all in all, though a little more variation in the tunes would have been good.

The action was good, if not awesome: the battle scene at the end depicted the what-the-hell-is-going-on chaos of a fight better than many movies. It does have a bit of that stop-start motion that Gladiator had, unfortunately - a personal gripe - and it wasn't as realistic or graphic as, say, Saving Private Ryan but, hey, it's an epic adventure, whattaya want? As for the complaint of "It's so long!" (I get that a lot, too) - the books have been written and there's only so much you can cut out.

It's obvious that the director loved the books and has tried hard to do them justice; and he has. Kudos all round.

10/10

Sure, it has a couple of flaws, but it's the best effort I've seen for a long, long while.

[bskutle]

Long story short, here's where "Fellowship" rates on my Best/Favorites lists for all-time:

bskutle's Favorite Films of All-Time: #12
bskutle's Best Films Ever Made: #44

Long story long, here's the review I wrote for "Fellowship" last Christmas:

First off, my criticisms of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring": Like the book, the events before Frodo Baggins embarks on his journey move slowly.

That said, let me put this simply: "Fellowship of the Ring" is magnificent, a riveting epic in every sense of the term, filmed with passion and skill by co-writer/director Peter Jackson. The first film of a 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" 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.

(At the time I first saw "Fellowship," I had only read 50 pages of the book; as of now, I'm completed through "Towers" and primed to move into "King" after film two comes out.)

What's it about? For the uninitiated, and put in the simplist form, "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 uncle Bilbo- 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, Merry, and Pippen, a mysterious ranger called Strider, the elven archer Legolas, a proud warrior by the name of Boromir, and the dwarf Gimli. Also involved- in various ways- are Arwen the warrior-princess, Galadriel, the elf-queend of Lothlorien, and Saruman, a wizard every bit as powerful as Gandalf.

This is just an outline of "Fellowship"; to say more would surely damage the experience of watching the film yourself. 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- 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 "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" was criticized for was the workman-like direction of Chris Columbus; being faithful to the text, but not really enliving it with a more cinematic vision. Jackson's "Fellowship" makes me see what they mean; among 2001 blockbusters, only Steven Spielberg's "A.I." came close to equalling "Fellowship's" sense of wonder and imagination. Jackson's having the time of his life realizing this ultimate dream project, and that infectious feeling enters the viewer, making "Fellowship" 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 Alan Lee and John Howe, illustrators for Tolkien's books- and it's many locations- Mordor, Shire, Rivendell, 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 sly 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 have my nod for Best Visual Effects, while the makeup is extraordinary. If Jackson deserves much of the credit to how smoothly "Fellowship" flows, also give credit to his editor John Gilbert; the editing is crisp and logical, and doesn't wear thin like in other action-adventures. And the cinematography! Few epics feel truly epic; "Fellowship" does, and in spades. 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").

Fantasy films aren't known for their acting per se, 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 "Forever Young" & "The Ice Storm"- carries the film with confidence, 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 as Gandalf, and he has a compelling "partner" in wizardry in Lee's Saruman; Tyler is atoned for "Armageddon" in my book, and Blanchett 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, as they're overshadowed by the rich, surprising depth given to Aragorn (AKA 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 vet Howard Shore, and while he's known more for dark, moody scores like "Silence of the Lambs" and every David Cronenberg film ever, he hits a peak with "Fellowship." Now as some of you may know, in the '80s composer Johan De Meij wrote a five-movement symphony 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." 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 year, but of the past 5-10 years.

Well, I'm out. What else can I say? I came, I saw, I loved completely (see my quibble at the top). It's an event epic worthy of comparison to "Star Wars" (which will still remain my favorite movie series of all-time). Like that classics, "Fellowship" created in me a sense of wonder that only the great ones do. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" is an extraordinary story, and Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring" is a powerful cinematic telling of that story, and I can't wait for December and "The Two Towers." That really says it all, doesn't it?

Grade for "Fellowship of the Ring"- A+