Lord Of The Rings (Real reviews, please)

[Ecthy]

Re: Spoilers for those who haven't read the books

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When they chase Frodo and the elven rider towards the Fords of Isen, you know he's going to get away.

Ford of Bruinen

[chequita guevara]

Fixed.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Spoilers for those who haven't read the books

Thank you for the reporting comrade! I might for once do the yuppie thing and book tickets in advance if it is THAT good! (no way I'm gonna get in a theater today or the next days without pre-booking)

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Despite knowing the story, and everything that is coming, Galdalf's death hits you hard. When Frodo is run through in Moria and he collapses, we know he's not dead, but the look on his face as he is pierced, and the anguish on all of the rest of the characters makes you believe that he is killed, when you knowhe isn't.

But IIRC Galdalf isn't pierced, he just falls in the chasm, no?

And what is balrog? Is he the one who had the ring before and turned into a little monster? (I don't thing I remember anyone with that name in the greek translation of LOTR)

[Wiglaf]

Just saw it

Great movie, follows the book's plot nicely. Incredible battle shots as well.

One of the best of the year, IMO.

[devilmunchkin]

i went and saw a midnight sneak preview of it last night.
ALone, as a movie, it is absolutely brilliant with nonstop actions and larger than life effects. YOu barely notice that the movie is three hours long. I think the casting is great and Merry and Pippin made the whole theatre laugh. The person who plays Legolas is HOT!!!! *DROOL and fans self* YUMMMMYYYYY!!!!
ok...but if we're talking from the bookd perspective, then it's ok to get a little more critical. Liv tyler's character should have not even been in it...or used as a cameo until she couldbe properly brought in in the next installment. The axing of the imperative seen of Tom Bambadil annoyed me. I can see them skipping over the beggining part about selling Bag End and moving back to the Brandybucks....but to cut out Bombadil??!!! ack!
When i read the book before, i could never give shape to the Balrog...and i'm quite satisfied at the work we did with it, but i don't recall gandalf looking like he purposely let go in the book.
Sean Astin pulls off the devotion of Frodo quite nicely without making it look homosexual...which is good. Before i was wondering if Hollywood would be capable of creating that without causing a stor about that.
Boromir exhibits wonderful contrasts between his emotion to desire the ring and stay faithful to the mission. I really enjoyed his character.
Elrond...i kept seeing the matrix ...i couldn't help it. lol. And why did he have brunette hair when all the other elves are blonde? ANd galadriel had this sinister feel about her that i never picked up on in the book.
Afterwards i wanted to see the second installment right away, even though i knew it ended how it was supposed to. People who hadn't read the book (of which there were most likely none last night. all us nerds vied for the snak preview seats. heehee) might be perplexed by the cut off. It's very obvious that there will be more to follow but others might leave with a sense of unfullfillment.
I also like the way that the story interweaves the se[arater journies of Gandalf rather than having him suddenly appear in the book and take us back, as the book does.

overall, this movie is one of thebest i've ever seen.

[Ecthy]

paiktis -

he said Frodo gets pierced... in the bok, he gets pierced by an orc javelin, in the movie it's the troll

and then, what is a balrog eh? did they really translate that into another word for the greek version?

let me put it shortly... when the valar came to middle-earth, one of them was morgoth... and wit hthe valar came the maiar... the 5 istari are maiar, such as oilorin (gandalf), curunir (saruman) and radagast... mrogoth had his own maiar.. he called them demons of power, or valaraukar.. valarauko in singular... now in an elvish accent, they're called balrog... and they're big demons with fire etc, like the one at the bridge of Hadodhrond/Zwergenbinge/Moria

[Ecthy]

devilmuchkin - I would have thought that watching the movie without having read the book must make the movie pretty lame, since all the quick changes of locations and actions etc etc really make it very complicated, and without a map in mind, you're lost...

[Bereta_Eder]

German afficionado,

ooops, correct. He said Frodo, I thought it was Gandalf!

No, the greek version has translated very few names if any. (for example, frodo, bilbo, sam and most others are the same).

So what was the name of the monster ex-hobbit who carried the ring before Bilbo?

[November Adam]

Gollum... or Smeagol.

Now did Gollum find the ring in Gladden Fields or was it his friend?

[Fiera]

Re: Spoilers for those who haven't read the books

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The casting is excellent (okay, maybe not Liv Taylor as Arwen, but she still does a good job).

Hey, Chegitz, and what about Elijah Wood and the other hobbits? I don't think they're the way I imagined hobbits to be... what do you reckon?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by November Adam
Gollum... or Smeagol.

Now did Gollum find the ring in Gladden Fields or was it his friend?

Well, depends... in the book, Deagol finds it and Smeagol kills him.... in the movie, it is just found... and then the creature Gollum gets its hands on it and takes it to the Misty Mountains, so the whole episode about the relevant hobbit fishers is not mentioend but not denied either, the story is just cut down to the most important stuff

what I find nice is the tiny statements concerning the predecessing story, The Hobbit... Bilbo's boo, Gandalf being involved in "the story about the dragon" and all that... I can't remember either of those details from the book, but the idea of The Hobbit is presented nice in this movie...

looking forward to the second movie,it is supposed to be a lot of fun!

[DarkCloud]

Generic Review of The Fellowship of the Ring
-DarkCloud
(For FFZ, CGN, Apolyton, IMD)

The movie began better than I had expected.
Since I read the book, I knew the prestory, but one of the people I went with did not... Thus, while I found the introduction easy to understand, my friend needed some explination about the names and the relationship between characters.
The beginning was well-filled with action, and when Gandalf came to Hobbiton, it went fairly well...
However, Bilbo Baggins, although acting well when he first met Gandalf, sort of fell flat as the movie went on.
They did a good job of making hobbits seem smaller than the humans by casting tall humans, but the hobbits did not really look like "hobbits", however the Dwarves looked well... The Goblins and Orcs looked Reasonable, but the Balrog looked too much like a reject Magog from the Heroes of Might and Magic computer game.
The elves did not look sufficiently different from humans, or from each other. Arwen looked much like Galadriel and each of their names were only mentioned once, thus it was hard to tell whether Galadriel was Arwen at one time...
*.*
The only main thing they cut out was Tom Bombadil. And the only minor thing they cut out that was not a major "change" was that Gandalf did not battle at Candlekeep.
However their little "addition" and "change" with Arwen, truly made the movie fairly annoying.
Instead of Gandalf saving Frodo from the Nazgul, Arwen appears, with little or no explanation. She then saves Frodo by crossing the river and sends the river down on the Nazgul...
Then Gandalf appears and Arwen disappears after talking to Aragorn (Strider)?
I understand the need for "romance", but please, don't mess with Tolkien.

Other than that, the only other confusing parts of the movie was when the Party reached Lothorioen and met Galadriel and her husband. The trouble here was Galadriel looked much like Arwen and her husband looked MUCH like Elrond... Thus, the idea was given that Elrond and Arwen rode ahead of the party somehow???? It made no sense- eventually I figured out it was not Arwen, but Galadriel and thus Elrond couln't have come...
However, Galadriel only mentions her name once!

The other problem with Galadriel was her temptation by the ring which was confusing, unnecessary and unexplained.
It could have been cut.

And, one annoying detail was the misty "ring" sequences when Frodo puts on the ring and is transported into the mist. Those sequences were merely annoying.

Overall the story was quick, execept for a few 'dramatic' moments such as the drawing out of Boromir's death and Samwise under the water.
The acting was so-so...
Frodo, Gandalf, and Saruman did extremely well, whereas I believe Boromir could have looked a bit more haunted. Bilbo could have been improved.

The story was kept to better than most adaptations which I have seen, and the additions of the back story at the beginning of the tale was necessary.

Also, they did a good job of setting up the Ents for book two with Saruman burning trees.

Overall, I would rate the movie about a B+ or A-.

However, when I left the movie, I heard someone behind me remark (I doubt he had ever read the books) "That was crap." referring to the ending... Now of course, we could not expect the producers of the movie to make the ending better, but, this lead me to think that perhaps they should release one movie every 6 months, just so that people will remember what happened in the last movie and the movies won't have to be summed up.
Also, it would allow people to feel 'fullfilled' sooner. For, the person making the remark seemed unfulfilled. (I also noticed at least 2 people walk out of the movie and not return)

However, some, such as my friend who had never read the books, rate it higher than the Harry Potter movie, and have pledged to read the books due to how interesting the movie was.

I look forward to the sequel and a possible prequel (the Hobbit)

-DarkCloud

PS: The movie seemed like only 1:45 hours long... It went quickly.

[Q Classic]

i liked it. but someone mentioned things about casting:

i disagree on two counts.

first is liv tyler as arwen-- i actually think she did a good job, and i liked her in the part. i did, however, find it a little bit strange that they changed her character to be more action-y, but i don't mind too much.

as for elrond, i think hugo weaving looks a bit too sinister. i mean, elrond's maybe not the happiest guy in the world, but weaving makes him look too shaded, too suspicious, too unhappy. too sinister, really. perhaps i can't get agent smith out of my head, but that's really what he looks like. he looks too dark for the role-- and by dark, i mean not on the side of good.

overall, though, i think it was a splendid adaptation. the changes will be visible in many cases, but they're done so in a manner that isn't too distracting or too detrimental to the story; the landscapes and graphics are positively stunning.

the script is strong, but there are time when it almost sounds forced, but not really.

and the soundtrack is also strong, but there are some instances where it comes perilously close to being too predictable...

worth usd7.50, i suppose.

[Hans2]

Yes, everyone who has read the books misses Bombadil and the Wrights. But let me ask you this, the movie was already three hours long, three hours fifteen minutes with the trailers and ads all theatres run. How long would it have been with the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs added? three hours forty five minutes? Four hours? A movie that is more than three and a half hours long is an economic disaster waiting to happen for a film company. Fifteen minutes, even half an hour, is not enough time to do justice to Bombadil and the Wrights. I'm glad they cut that, for if it had been included, what else would have been cut? The council at Rivendel? The Mines of Moria?

[DanS]

"but the hobbits did not really look like "hobbits", however the Dwarves looked well..."

Go back and read Tolkien's descriptions of hobbits and then look at his couple of drawings of hobbits (his illustrations in The Hobbit, IIRC). You will see that the movie stays amazingly close to how Tolkien imagined it. Even after reading the books a couple of times, some assume that the hobbits are supposed to be fat (because they eat so much and they like to lounge), but it just ain't so. Sam is supposed to be a little chubby, but that's the extent of it.