LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring

[Patrick Sun]

Hmm...I've never read the books.

I really wanted to LOVE this film, but I came away with a gentle fondness for it instead.

For me, pacing is something that a great film gets right, and I didn't think the pacing was right in this film. Perhaps it was the source material, perhaps it was the director's choice. Either way, I found the film to drag in more just just a few spots, and some of the wonderment of the locales left me restless after a while.

Don't get me wrong, I think set design, and the landscape of the journey that we are shown was very well done, there was some really imaginative CGI work on full display on the screen.

I had some problems with the lack of tension and urgency in the film. It was languid when it might have been better if it were a little more manic.

Another thing that bothered me, probably more than someone who's read the books, was the character development. The main problem is having 9 characters in the FOTR, it's a difficult job to imbue life into all of them, while also pushing the story along. Such is the limitation of cinema versus a book. And you add in all the characters that they meet along the way, and it gets pretty confusing to know who's on Frodo's side, and who's got another agenda.

Also, there just too many male characters crying in this film! I found myself not really connecting with any of the characters in this film. I felt like a cousin twice removed from the interactions between the characters.

While the achievement in cinema is something that'll set the standard for fantasy films, I will be one of the lone dissenters and give this film a lowly 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.




PatCave; HT Pix;Gear;DIY Projects;DVDs; LDs

[Greg Stone]

From someone who has read all the books, numerous times... it helps to read the book before seeing the movie! It is hard to have character development with 9 members in the fellowship. The book does a much better job, as they always do.

It was also nice when a new character was shown, I already had a pretty good idea who they were. Only missed one. The books have so much detail, and background on the main characters that it is virtually impossible to provide this in a movie. Heck, this is already a 3 hour movie!

The great thing about it was, at the end, several people were upset that the movie ended. I know for sure I wanted the story to continue. Makes for a long wait until next Christmas.

Not a lot of difference in our rating, but I have to disagree with you Pat, and give it 4.0 stars, or an A-. Definitely a must see.




Greg's DVD's

[Andrew Pratt]

First off I admit to not having read the LOTR but I did read the hobbit (albeit over a decade ago)

Pat you and I have very similar views on this one. My wife and I saw it over the holidays and I came away impressed with the scenery, costumes, and casting etc but the story never seemed to grab me. I had some issues with the fight scenes as well since they were often to dark and simply flashed from one scene to another so it was difficult to follow along. Pat you make mention that the CGI is well done and I agree for the most part. There were a few scenes though that I didn't think were well done. One was when the fellowship is running though the grand hall as that fire demon was after them..they showed the charters running and IMO it looked a little 'off'.
comparisons to Harry Potter are unavoidable given their both based on books, released at the same time and are both mythological. Anyway IMO Harry Potter is better able to stand on its own vs LOTR. By that I mean if the viewer hasn't read the books HP is easier to follow then LOTR.

[Patrick Sun]

I thought I owed this film one more viewing before it's gone from the theaters.

I made it half-way through (when Frodo is taken to Elf-ville) before walking out of the film. I got tired of the blurriness of the photography in this film, and I still didn't really give a hoot about any of the characters, so I left.

I tried, I really tried to "like/love" this film, but I guess it just wasn't for me after all.




PatCave; HT Pix;Gear;DIY Projects;DVDs; LDs

[George Bellefontaine]

I was thinking about going to see this , but I don't think I'll bother. I liked the books. And BTW, it will be difficult to totally understand all the characters and whatnot if you haven't read the books. I also think the series should have begun with The Hobbit. Just my opinion.




My Homepage!

[David Meek]

Greg,

I've got to agree with you on LOTR: FOTR. I was swept away by the imagery and overall "feel" of the movie. Admittedly I went in wanting this film to match the mental pictures I've had in my mind since first reading The Hobbit and The Fellowship trilogy many years ago, and IT DID! Having said that, I do need to see it again before it leaves the big screen just to give it a more objective viewing.

I don't want to spoil anything so I won't go into plot details, but the CGI on the wraiths (they were extremely cool!), the orcs and also on "sizing" everyone (hobbits, dwarves, humans and elves were all different heights) was good enough that it faded into the background of the story - basically became invisible - 'nuff said. The battle scenes were very good, with realistic sword-play (as far as a non-swordsman can tell ).

Bottom line, I was in no way disappointed! See this movie soon! So far I have to give it a solid "A". Now, on a second viewing focusing on things other than the story, it'll be interesting to see if my response changes.




David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

[P-Dub]

I finally made it to a showing of LOTR this weekend. After 4 months, the theater still had a respectible number of people attending. On checking it looks like it's grossed over $305 million, so its staying power is pretty high.

I liked it.

I have not read any of the books, and only know a little about the whole backdrop to the story. I think the film does a really good job of telling the backdrop to the whole story. With a running lenght of close to 3 hours, I was never got the feeling that the movie dragged. The only indication that time was moving on was the annoying hourly beeping of someone's watch. :M

I felt I got to know the characters pretty well, I think the Sean Bean character could have been better introduced, as I wondered why he was even there. It seemed like Frodo used the ring a few too many times for my taste. And I couldn't get over Hugo Weaving playing Elrond. I kept adding the words, "Mr. Anderson" to the end of each of his sentences. Those are my nitpicks.

I totaly got involved with the rest of the movie, I jumped at all the right times. I can't wait for the DVD and the release of Twin Towers this Christmas.

:4: out of :5:




Paul

There are three kinds of people in this world; those that can count, and those that can't.

[David Meek]

I finally got my second viewing in, although it wasn't at a theater. I'm overnighting it in San Antonio and Fellowship Of The Ring was available on pay per view here at the Adam's Mark. So after another three hours in middle-earth, I still give it an A. It follows the book very well. The "look and feel" is great. Ditto the special effects, and I'm really getting into the characters of Gandalf and Aragorn. One thing this viewing in "hotel-o-scope" did though, is REALLY make me despise Pan 'N Scan - gimme my 16:9!




David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker