|
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Full Screen Edition) Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
What can I say? I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Becoming available in high definition would make me purchase a Blu Ray. Currently, I own HD-DVD, which is excellent, but we can't have two standards (Blu Ray won for arguably political reasons). Can we? With that said, I'm waiting for a decent Profile 3.0 Blu Ray players to come down to HD-DVD prices. I'm not desperate. I can wait a long time.
As for the movie, if you haven't seen it, and you love a movie with elements of magic, adventure, mystery, action, suspense, triumph, struggle, and love, then get this movie, and the other two.
Rating: -
Our family all love reading JR Tolkein's tale; the quality of this DVD is better than any others we have purchased to date so the full screen edition is highly recommended.
Rating: -
Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring is a good representation of Tolkien's original work, but it is also a very well-made movie. Just like Tolkien's book, The Lord of the Rings, has long been the standard to which most fantasy books are compared, I believe fantasy movies will be held against the movie trilogy for many years to come. (Be aware that this review may contain some SPOILERS).
One of the biggest criticisms I see about the movie is some of the changes made from the book. Yes, there is much more in Tolkien's book than is in the movie, but can it really be helped? For the most part the movie stays very faithful to the book. Yes, parts were left out (like the character of Tom Bombadil), but most of this was done so the immense work could fit into a movie. And even with the abridgement, the movie is still over three hours long. I caution audiences to keep an open mind and not think everything has to exactly match the book. It's okay to like them both.
Here are all the good things about the movie:
The cinematography is completely AMAZING. The locations were totally believable. I was awestruck by the beauty of Middle-Earth when I saw it on screen for the first time.
The special effects were incredible. Jackson and his crew went back to many of the techniques we have come to know as "movie magic". In most movies nowadays, computer-animated graphics seem so overused, but in Fellowship of the Ring it appeared to only be used as a last resort. (It was done very well, too. In watching some of the special features, I saw a couple effects that I would never have known were computer animated without it being pointed out to me).
The music in the movie is a richly colored tapestry interwoven into the movie. Howard Shore was able to create and convey many different moods and emotions with the score.
The sets, costumes, weapons, and props are all masterfully designed. They are believable, graceful, and beautiful.
The writing and acting are both fantastic. While the filming of the movie is great, they did not sacrifice writing for special effects. The dialogue in Fellowship of the Ring is very poetic and intelligent (yes, there is a movie out there with intelligent writing). And believe it or not, I didn't hear a single profane word spoken in the entire 3-hour-long movie.
The DVD has several hours of special features that are as entertaining as they are informative. I think audiences will be fascinated in seeing some of the processes involved in making The Fellowship of the Ring.
If you want to discover an immense and beautiful world you have never seen before, I recommend this movie to you.
Rating:  -
Order said it would arrive within 6 days after shipment, but it arrived earlier, on my birthday!
Good condition, could tell some clean up had been done. Overall, a very good experience.
Rating:  -
Why 3 stars? Pretty much everyone else seems to adore this film. And why not. It's visually beautiful, the cinematography is lush and necessarily pastoral, the music does a very good job of enabling the visual aspects of the film. So why 3 stars?
1) Peter Jackson is obviously a giant kid with toys. He's got a wonderful imagination and assembled a nearly great team of pre-pro, production, and post pro artists. But the man cannot direct to save his life. Everything is pretty much either a distance or 'long' shot in which effects and the input of at least tens if not hundreds of people went into them; these are indeed amazing and beautiful. But then, good old PJ's gotta ram the camera up the nose of all the actors in close-up after close-up as if this will convey to the audience a sense of character dynamic and develop a relationship with that character through close-up. Where are the medium shots, the shots that tie in those long shots and those close-ups? I see very few of them and by not having them, the film is not done the justice that it should have had.
2) Editing. Now, the editing does get decidely better in film's 2 and 3, but Fellowship is pretty much one big editing mess. The pacing in many of the scenes feels rushed and unbalanced. Examples: 1) The opening scene with Frodo and Gandalf; there is no linger, no friendly invite in the way that the editor(s) chose the shots. This perhaps can be partly due to the effects and the separation/distance effects in order to make Elijah Woods appear much smaller than McKellan. 2) The dark rider entering the Shire. Horse and rider enters frame and we cut 1 to 2 seconds shy of where the natural beat feels it should be. Of course, the music keeps up so it has the appearance of being natural, but the intuitive flow is just not there. 3) The dark riders being swept down by the river when Arwen summons the water. Again, the climax of the moment is abruptly taken away from us. After all, these Ringwraiths have been the main antagonists for the better part of 1.5 hours. Even just another second or two does the trick. This 'minimalist' editing goes on and on throughout the film and as a cummulative effect it starts to takes its toll on the picture. This opinion of the editing of FOTR is not just my own (as an editor) but is held by many editors that I know as pretty close to the same view.
3) Frodo is a wimp. I said it, Frodo pusses out, whines, and does a great deal too much crying. Where's my tough little hero who shines on the ringwraiths at the Ford? Where's the stalwart heart who confronts the ringwraiths at the lookout point? Not here.
4) The prologue. This feels like some sort of a big studio exec decision, 'we need some action cause we don't have any for almost 2 hours', or 'the story is so complex lets give it all away to our stupid audience so they don't really have to think at all or remember much.' However, it seems that PJ was the advocate of this prologue. Placing this prologue or much of that information in its rightful place at the Council of Elrond makes for a much more visual sequence.
5) Isildur is a doosh, and he is one right from the get-go. I had heard of the sequence they were going to shoot in which the Elf King (can't remember his name) and the Human King, Elendil were going to charge the near impervious Sauron, basically sacrificing themselves and that Isildur was going to attack Sauron. When Isildur slices off Sauron's arm the power shatters the kingly sword. There was a little more to the sequence but I got goosebumps from reading it, and then we're given a watered down, Isildur's a doosh/Sauron's a turd sequence.
6) Frodo dies forever. Considering that in the next film, The Two Towers, the writers can't think of another way to get Aragorn to see the 10,000 Uruk'hai except by 'fake' killing him off so he becomes separated from the rest of the group, and since Gandalf is also going to be 'fake' killed off towards the final third of this film, Frodo's 'fake' death, in super slow-mo is just too much 'fake' death for me to take. Make the moment stand out, sure, but don't make it last a "life-age."
7) Thousands of little Moria orcs have our brave fellowship surrounded, imminent death, and then the Balrog saves the day scattering a sure skewering crowd of would-be Moria orcs. Stupid, lame... how about make the entire sequence a chase in which our brave fellows are battling to the last, appearing to hold out against all odds in ever confined quarters as they start to descend narrow stairs, and THEN the Balrog makes his first appearance and crushes all hope of which even Gandalf is terrified of.
8) PJ can't direct action (at least in this film). When I first saw the cave-troll battle sequence online way back in mid-2001 I was somewhat excited. However, with it came the caveat that PJ better school the audience on how to direct action, each sequence getting its own flavour. And this 'hand-held' shaky-cam stuff, while having its obvious place in the frenetic close-quarter combat of the tomb sequence, doesn't really need to be used any more than that as there are countless other techniques to direct and edit said action. Nope. We get pretty much the same shaky-cam stuff for every action, confrontation sequence. Not as bad as say Bourne Supremacy or Ultimatum, but still lacking in the diversity that the various action sequences potentially calls for.
I could go and on and the films do get better but even with all the fanatic love put into the making of these films and I have no doubt that this is the best rendition of Tolkien's work that we'll ever see, I still feel that this first film only really deserves 3-stars. It should have been better than what was finally shown to us. Other people obviously adore this film and I'm very pleased for them. I just saw too many flaws where there was no need for such. All the pieces are there; at times the editing is flawless, at times the action directing/editing sings perfectly, at times Elijah is everything Frodo reads on the page, at times, at times... so why not all the time?
|
