User reviews

Simply incredible. Never before have I seen a 3 hour movie that didn't seem like 3 hours. I read the Lord of the Rings very recently and I was surprised at how similar Peter Jackson's vision was to my own.

Now about the omissions and alterations. I'm not a crazed fanatic who gets worked up over every little detail. I didn't mind Arwen's inflation and I'm actually glad Tom Bombadil was scrubbed (I felt Tom Bombadil was an unnecessary addition to the book). Despite these minor changes, the screenplay stays extremely close to the book and flows very very well (and the prologue was a nice touch).

The acting was flawless. As I've read many many times in other reviews, McKellen doesn't play Gandalf, he IS Gandalf. Wood, Mortensen, Holm, Astin, everyone was fantastic. My hat's off to Sean Bean who delivers an excellent performance as Boromir, a character who's intentions are good but wrestles with the corrupting power of the Ring. Bean portrays it VERY well. Oh, and Andy Serkis does a PERFECT Gollum voice. It's EXACTLY as I imagined it myself.

The special effects were incredible, the cave troll, the balrog, Gollum, and Sauron's Eye all looked amazing. I was also very impressed by the seamless shrinking of the vertically challenged characters.

What's wrong with this movie? I have no idea... I thought everything was perfect. MY biggest gripe is having to wait an entire year to see The Two Towers!

The first part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Fellowship of the Rings opened the door to a whole new world for me. I'd never read any of Tolkien's books when I saw the film for the first time at the theatre and, now that I've read them, in retrospect I think being a neophyte to the mythology made my LOTR movie experience all the more miraculous.

I loved The Two Towers and Return of the King almost as much as FOTR, but not quite, because seeing Fellowship for the first time was like taking a journey to a fabulous new place and meeting incredible new friends that you don't want to leave. I've never felt anything quite like what this epic evoked in me. It was akin to being a child again, with that tireless sense of wonder and enjoyment of each and every moment, maybe because as a child you are discovering your surroundings, and whatever age you are, when you watch the Fellowship of the Ring you are rendered in awe upon being introduced to the purity and beauty of Middle Earth and darkly enthralled by the majesty of Eisengard, Saruman, Sauron and all of their mighty malice. One of the things that makes this movie so special (and there are so many!) is that you fall in love not only with the "good" characters, but also with the "evil" ones. For example, Christopher Lee was amazing as Saruman, and I can't imagine the movie without him.

Some films that might be comparable to the Lord of the Rings trilogy are: The Fifth Element, the Star Wars Trilogy parts IV, V and VI (forget the newer prequels), the Matrix trilogy (especially the first part), Interview with a Vampire, the Legend of Sleepy Hollow (with Johnny Depp), Logan's Run and The Island. They are all excellent movies and works of art that weave that movie magic that keeps you spellbound and entranced for the duration of their runtime.

But after seeing The Fellowship of the Ring, I knew I had found the movie by which I would judge all other movies. Based on J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved books, Peter Jackson has set a new standard in the industry of cinema, one that I honestly think has not and won't be surpassed, at least not in my lifetime, not even by PJ himself.

It is truly an instant classic that will stand the test of time and be loved by generations to come. God Bless Tolkien and Jackson and everyone involved in the conception and making of this film, for creating a world that is at my fingertips, only takes the touch of a button to go to whenever I want, and makes me forget everything else.

The LOTR Trilogy is undoubtedly MY precious, the non plus ultra of all movies!

An incredible feat Enthrals anew every time Cannot believe its two decades ago Love it so much

(95%) If the late 70's early 80's had the Star wars trilogy, then the 2000's had this epic fantasy masterclass. Regardless of whether you're a fantasy fan or not this is too good a movie to simply pass up, and it will be one of those movies that given time will prove it to be a classic. The deeper you look into this the more one notices that every single aspect really is a truly impressive accomplishment. The fact that every single sword used by the main characters was made by hand, with extra ones made only for carrying, fighting, etc, then there's the costumes/armor/props all made by teams of many people. They even made artificial trees for gods sake. But really all those things are just extras, what really makes this a unique watch is that it really does feel huge and sweeping, the sense of scale is fantastic and I can't think of anything that even comes close to matching it. What every epic flick needs this has, the cast is great, it's exciting, it has bags of character, it's funny, sad, superbly well made, with a great score and plenty of action. It's also one of very few 2 hour 30 minute + movies ever that leaves the audience wanting more. Since watching it around Christmas 2001 at a packed out cinema, and the many times I've seen it on DVD since, it never fails to impress and charm. All in all near perfect cinematic treat that keeps on giving.

Breathtaking. Unique. Captivating. Enchanting.

Within minutes of the start of this first chapter of an undeniably epic trilogy, the audience was left gasping at the intensity of the images on the screen. And we had nearly three hours to go.

The scope of Tolkien's masterpiece may have eluded film-makers for decades, but director Peter Jackson makes good on his promise: he has not only brought us the tale of Frodo and his bold companions, he has brought us Middle Earth. And believe me, it is BIG. Sweeping vistas and hang-onto-your-seat camera shots send us zooming through the towering cities and citadels of Tolkien's imagination.

But even more impressive than the stunning visuals and sound-effects-like-you've-never-heard-before are the actors who breathe life into the characters. Ian McKellen's portrayal of Gandalf is nothing short of awe-inspiring, and Elijah Wood's Frodo is one of the most unexpectedly captivating performances I've seen in a long time. The despair, terror, and determination of the Fellowship is all there, in spades. I left the theater aching...from tensing every muscle during the fight and flight sequences--the breathless and compelling kind we haven't seen since Spielberg gave us a desperate charge onto the D-Day beaches of Normandy.

Those unfamiliar with Tolkien's world may quickly find themselves lost in it, but happily so. The depth of his creation cannot be grasped in a few hours, and it doesn't need to be; the struggle of good against evil explodes on the screen, and leaves little room for complaint.

The movie ended with a stunned audience sitting on the edges of their seats, feeling somewhat bereft. We were exhausted, but no one wanted to wait a year for more.

Jackson's ambitious first chapter is truly unlike anything you've seen this year. George Lucas and Chris Columbus take note: this is how you deliver on a cinematic promise.

For everyone else: don't you dare miss it.

Here is one film that lived up to its hype, and by the time I saw it after it had arrived at the video stores, I had heard and read a ton of things about it, and seen all the awards it had received, and expected a lot. To my surprise, it did not disappoint.

Now, several years later after having watched all three of these "Rings" films twice each, I still think this first movie of the trilogy is the best. It is a truly spectacular adventure story all the way through, probably the best ever put to film...and the first three hours of it is extra special. The following two films were very good, to be sure, but this first had a better mixture of the story. The second and third movies were almost entirely Frodo and his allies' long journey, but the first half of this movie also gives a good bit of interesting introductory material including a number of scenes at the Shire, before the long adventure starts. If you watch all three of these films consecutively the action wears you down by midway through the final episode and it almost becomes just too much That never gets a chance to happen with the "Fellowship" film.

Anyway, "Fellowship," stunned me for the visuals alone. I can't recall any film that has so many jaw-dropping scenes, one after the other, for three straight hours. Some are beyond description, and I don't care if they are computer- generated. So what? The fact is they are awesome to view, both in beauty and in staggering action scenes that feature incredible-looking monsters and other mythical characters.

The story covers all kinds of terrain, too, from the lush Shire of the Hobbits, to the harsh neighboring landscapes. Each couple of minutes, as in the two movies that followed, scenes radically change from calmness to action, adventure to romance, sweet lovable characters to hideous monsters, on and on and on. It's an incredible movie experience.

...but oh was I thankful for it!!! All through the movie I kept on having this big large smile sculpted into my face. For the record, I'm 25 years old, and I've read "The Lord of the Rings" in three times for the first time when I was six or seven years old. Ever since then, I read it at least once or twice a year - therefore you can count me as a fan, for I follow the same cult fan procedure with "The Hobbit" and "The Silmarillion" as well. Now onto the movie... Gosh, I saw it more than one time, and I keep wanting more of it. It just never gets boring! I really enjoyed the little stuff that is found throughout the movie for fans of the books (the map on Bilbo's table in his house comes to mind, it is exactly as the one in "The Hobbit" book that I own), and I also incredibly enjoyed the intro sequence with the re-telling of the battle against Sauron from the Silmarillion, never has an ultimate evil being been so well depicted on the screen. It truly is Sauron.

Those who argue the movie cuts too many parts or that it changes the story too much are totally wrong. This movie could not have shown the whole first time in its entirety - keep in mind that the audiobook version of 'Fellowship of the Ring' lasts well over ten hours, making a movie this long would, well, make it way too long and besides, how would you financially sustain such a project? I've read a reviewer saying he'd make all three books with the time allowed for the first movie alone. I think it would be a very fast-forwarding experience of a movie with 'Alvin and the Chimpmunks' kind of voices, incredibly stupid to say the least.

Ok, so there are changes in the movie - well, this is Jackson's vision of it. All of us have our own visions of the books, which may or may not be compatible with that of Jackson's, but I can safely assume that nobody can say they have a hundred percent the same vision of the story as Tolkien; that's the thing with books: each reader has a different vision of it. As for me, I was blown away. Never before have I felt so much at home in a movie, it is as if I had taken a walk in the town where I grew up, the Shire, Rivendell, Moria, Lorien, everything felt so much like home, I was moved. I cannot tell of another movie that had me shed tears just by seeing a landscape on screen.

As for the changes, well, I found good reasons behind all of them, and let me tell you right away, I was happy that Arwen saved Frodo, yes, maybe coming from a fan it will look like absolute heresy, but I enjoyed the scene a lot. I did not enjoy it because it was supposedly politically-correct to do so, or that I find Liv Tyler to be absolutely attractive; it was just because I felt like even though it was a big change from the book, it was a very good one indeed, it makes you discover the power, determination, and courage of elves and the fact that even elven women, although great in their beauty and seemingly fragile in appearance do not have anything to envy to their male counterparts. And beside, as Arwen is to become a Queen later on, it was pretty good to see her have a great first appearance.

The actors were great, they were a lot into their characters, and for the first time, I saw elves as they were, quick, agile, terrifyingly effective in battle - just look at how Legolas dealed with the hordes of enemies without a single hint of fear in his eyes - these are elves as they should be. Gimli was great too, I know people seem to think many characters were not developed enough, but by the actions you can learn a lot. With Gimli a lot can be learned about the dwarves, their pride, deep sense of honor and family, their mistrust of elves, their love for strong beer and a good fight against anything bigger, and their sheer hatred for orcs and the likes. Aragorn was totally the ranger character, the ending scene as he walked toward the horde of Uruk-Hai warriors was great, his attitude, his clothes, everything about him just cried "ranger". Boromir was very well depicted, desperate to save the people of Gondor, by any mean necessary, robbed of all hope, yet in the end he redeems himself by showing his true valour, deep down, he's willing to die to defeat evil, and when he recognizes his king in Aragorn, on his last breath, I felt like watching a hero die, it was moving. The hobbits were all great, Frodo is deeply sad and fatalist, and Sam is just the 'best friend' everyone would like to have, just as it should be. Finally, we have Gandalf, quite frankly, he looks mighty, Ian IS Gandalf. The faceoff against the Balrog in the Moria is a memorable sequence, and just shows how strong he really is, to be able to vanquish such a foe. I can't wait for his return.

Quite frankly, I can't wait for the two other movies... In the meantime, I'll watch this one over and over again. This movie has everything that a good movie needs to have, and more. Plus, it just might bring more people to actually read books that have more pages than the average little 25¢ novel that has no value in it, which is great. Parents, maybe some scenes will frighten your kids, but this movie has almost NO blood (even though it has a good share of battle) and the foes are undeniably evil, plus it has good values in it - friendship, courage, responsiblity, sacrifice for a good cause, and the belief that anyone can help to change things. This is worthy of Tolkien, this is a movie that will go down in history as being one of the best ever, for sure.

I think it is important to remember that Peter Jackson took up this film not in order just to make a film of `The Lord of the Rings' but because he wanted to make a 'fantasy just like the `The Lord of the Rings'" as he himself put it. After repeating that phrase on a number of occasions the question popped into his mind: "Well, why not the `The Lord of the Rings' itself?". In doing this he, of course, set himself an enormous challenge: he had to make a really good `fantasy' film, one which would stand on its own and be true to what he had originally wanted to do but he would also, and here the task he had set himself was enormous, be true to the original book and to make a film which the legions of people who have loved this book would feel happy with. In the latter task he was certainly not helped by the author or the book: Tolkein, it would seem, hated cinema. The book itself is `HUGE': this was not going to be the kind of task that the James Ivory team set themselves, or Scorsese nor the kind of task facing Branagh with Hamlet; nor was it going to be like the puny task that faced Columbus with `Harry Potter' who had the bigger budget ($130 million for one film as compared with Peter Jackson with $300m for three).

I have just seen the first `volume' and can say without hesitation that he has succeeded in both his goals. It is not the book but a reading of the book which is inventive and fascinating. It is the kind of experience that makes you want to go back and reread the whole thing in the light of the emphases that Jackson has brought to the story. He focuses on the corrupting influence of the ring and, through this focus, the character of the chief protagonists of the story are revealed. Clearly those most tempted by it are mortal men (Boromir and even, in one moment, Aragorn), those who already have power (Elrond - `The ring cannot stay here'; Galadriel; Gandalf and Saruman), and, of course, those who would not normally desire it but who by accident become ring bearers - Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo. I can see why, in this reading, Jackson decided to leave out the Bombadil episode. Bombadil, like the Balrog, is beyond the ring but the latter is important to the unfolding of the story of the fates of all the characters, Bombadil isn't.

It is a miracle of this reading of the first volume of the book that one can see where Jackson is going and one can get a feel of how the reading is going to unfold. In a sense, Jackson's real trial - as far as those who know the books are concerned - will come with the second film in the series. He has lived up to our expectation by creating even bigger ones: how can he handle the story of the chase andrescue of Merry and Pippin, the storming of Isengard etc - stories which don't really add much to the core theme that is emerging. Or is he now going to add the theme of the great contest of good versus evil to the unfolding reading?

All of this points to the fact that the film, even though it is a feast of special effects, focuses on character. And this also explains why Jackson chose the actors he did for their roles: they are not `big' names - no `Sean Connery', no `Alan Rickman', no `Brad Pitt', no `Sam Neill'etc. He didn't want them getting in the way of the story of character. Ian McKellan's talents, in particular, are used to tell a large proportion of the story: an enormous amount is conveyed simply through his facial expressions and even by the language of his body. The other miracle in all of this is Elijah Wood. Like many others, when I first heard of Jackson's choice, I groaned: but Wood has been extraordinary. He brings, as one friend said, a strange kind of androgyny to the role and this is just perfect. McKellan has already been knighted: give Wood the Oscar.

And then there is Middle Earth: this is, as someone put it, another character in the story and the New Zealand landscape, digitally enhanced on occasion, lives up to its role too.

Enough. See this film! Greatest film ever made? How can one make a claim like that! Silly really; as silly as claiming that `The Lord of the Rings' is the greatest book ever written. Can't one simply love a story, enjoy reading it a number of times amd lose oneself in it. One CAN claim that it is the greatest work in its genre as is the film.

10/10

"For the time will soon come when Hobbits will shape the fortunes of all."

• Galadriel

Galadriel tells Hobbits may look like unimportant people but they will change the course of the future. Story begins with this line.

This line is not really the first line but the line stars the movie for real. This movie is breathtaking. Whatever I say is not enough for this trilogy. Brilliant novel, brilliant adapted screenplay.

Not just the novel or screenplay is excellent but the technics also revolutionary. The trilogy nearly opened a new era to Cinema. Some believed even more revolutionary than Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Amazing makeup, breathtaking visual effects, stunning cinematography. The trilogy nearly succeed at all technical subjects.

While Fellowship of the Ring is a good adventure movie, i also think it is very overrated. It doesn't hold a candle to A New Hope. The first part of the trilogy gets off to a slow start as we meet the characters who will soon become the fellowship. It picks up speed when the faceless, hood-wearing, horsemen come looking for the ring. There are some great action scenes that follow and an exciting cliffhanger at the end. I own this, the Two Towers, and will own Return of the King because they are good movies. But masterpieces they are not. They get slow at times, become cheesy at other times, and the acting is not top of the line. I'd give the whole trilogy a 7 out of 10. No more, no less. 7/10

It is with no surprise that Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring film has received such mixed critics. Many viewers refer to it as being childish, boring and uninteresting. Seems to me that it is bound to the same fate of Tolkien's books, destined to be a target for the same type of misunderstandings that keep attacking this literary masterpiece many decades after it's first publication.

Having read the books several years ago, I went to see this `impossible' film when it came out with many doubts on my mind. I really liked it, but left the theater with as many doubts as I had before. Was it perfect? Well, maybe not, but what an achievement. After watching it a few times on DVD, and thinking about it for some time now, I find myself loving this film more and more. Let me tell you why...

The Lord of the Rings is a fairy-tale of myth and fantasy. Peter Jackson directed a film that was considered, for a very long time, impossible to make, and not only for technical reasons. The narrative roots are incredibly long and detailed, and the storyline is deeply connected with the creation of a fantastic continent from a time unknown called `Middle Earth'. It's author, Tolkien, dedicated a considerable part of his life developing this continent's background, it's mythology and origins, it's different kinds of people, cultures and languages, and therefore it's geographic references are determinant to the unfolding of the story of the One Ring.

Peter Jackson went out to achieve the impossible and came out with a recreation of the original that is pure and true to the story in every detail. The first time the four hobbits meet a black rider on the road, for example, is absolutely faithful to the feeling of the book. The assault of the riders at Weathertop is another great example, and it captures that feeling of danger, density and atmosphere that are the main characteristics of the tale. Jackson also took some liberties with the story, and made some right choices along the way. If the so called `purists' may not approve the removal of Tom Bombadil altogether, it should be comprehensible that the travel from Hobbiton to Rivendel is a very long and detailed one and could easily make a movie on it's own. I felt more uneasy with how short the Council of Elrond was. In the book, the council is where the whole story of the rings is first explained, and many passages from the past ages of Middle Earth are unveiled. It is a fascinating moment of the story, that had to be shortened for obvious reasons. Still, after some consideration, I now agree with the options made by Peter Jackson, and think that the movie prologue narrated by Galadriel was the wisest choice. The magic is all there when Gandalf shuts his eyes the moment Frodo stands in the council and says `I will take the ring'. It is there at Moria's Gate, and at the fall of Boromir. It is a powerful film that doesn't fit the rhythm of the standard Hollywood action movie. It is a film that breeds, that takes time to unfold, it's tale branching in every direction.

I could go on and on, talking about all the different elements that bring this film close to perfection, but I'll end saying that deep down, this is not about action, beards and big monsters. The greatest thing about this film, to me, is that it brought me back to a time when I was in love with a different world where everything was possible. Reading The Lord of the Rings night after night, I came to understand what this thing of `mankind' really was all about. The corruption of absolute power, the importance and value of friendship, the inevitability of growing up, the strength of hope... That this film could capture that magic, and be a new bearer to it's message of humanism, is a statement to it's greatness. Gandalf's words, that even the smallest person may change the course of the world, and have a part to play in the destiny of all, are immortal.

In the end, this is a wonderful film, but that doesn't mean you are going to like it. I cannot tell you what it is like to see this film if you don't know or love the book. But I hope it may plant a seed on your heart to discover a great world of fantasy, beauty and humanity. I believe Tolkien would have liked that.

Star Wars has been dethroned. Although George Lucas' movies are good in their own right (except for the juvenile elements he puts in to sell toys to finance the franchise), his scripts (which borrow heavily from J.R.R.Tolkien, mythology & religion) can't compare with the brilliance of the literary trilogy `The Lord of the Rings'. Granted, Lucas took on a herculean task in writing & directing his story himself, but Tolkien's words, along with Peter Jackson's faithful adaptation & inspired vision, have created something no one man could equal.

Of course, it helps that Jackson insisted on at least a 2 picture deal, & New Line Cinema was brave enough to foot the bill up front for 3 movies. They spent $180 million to film all 3 simultaneously. With the New Zealand exchange rate, that equals $360 million ($90 million ea.), but since they used many of the same sets, and FX development costs were spread throughout, we're seeing $120-$150 million on the screen. This will ensure consistency in plot, casting, tone, etc.

In 3 hours, Jackson has crammed everything essential from the first novel & then some into the film, rewriting some scenes & dialogue with lesser characters for the leads, leaving out only what there wasn't enough time for. Basically, you have two 90 min. movies running back to back. There are no slow spots, just one climax after another. From the opening 10 min. backstory where the Dark Lord Sauron is shown on the battlefield wiping out men & elves 10 at a time with each swing of his mace, I was blown away. The romance between Aragorn, king in exile, and Arwen, daughter of the elf-lord, is played up for the "Titanic" quotient, but it's well done.

The story, sets, costumes & FX are so rich, you'll have to see the film several times to absorb everything. The unspoiled New Zealand locales are spectacular, providing a variety of environments to represent the different settings on the characters' journey. The location sets are imaginative, detailed & weathered, adding to their believability, while the studio sets match them in meticulousness. The costumes are at once familiar & strange, drawing on both the medievil & the fantastic, but more important, they're also functional & practical. The music by Howard Shore is appropriately sweeping, Celtic & folky in keeping with the novel, although it lacks the memorable themes of John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith, but neither would commit a year or more to a 3 picture project. The FX are as they should be, unobtrusive & unnoticed most of the time, there only to support the story not draw attention away from it as in most Hollywood movies which try to coverup illogical plots & bad acting.

I'm particularly gratified by the casting of Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn which was a last minute stroke of luck when the actor first chosen for the part backed out due to differences with the director. I've always thought Mortenson had an intensity & striking but not pretty-boy looks that could portray a flawed, dangerous hero instead of the villains Hollywood always picked him for.

A stellar cast giving some of their best performances, visuals that deliver beyond what I imagined, a perfect mix of humor, passion & tragedy, and a feeling of grandeur, scope & impending doom. Perhaps as an ensemble piece with so many characters & the inability to concentrate on any one, it can't be measured against some of the classic character study films, but even the casual moviegoer can grasp the ideas & not get lost As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the greatest films of all time.

LOTR is without a doubt, the best movie I've ever seen. I don't care what the Academy says because without a doubt, it was the best film of 2001 (obviously... i said it was the best movie I've ever seen). It deserved the Academy Award 10 times more than A Beautiful Mind did. I mean look at the difference between ratings. LOTR: #3 ABM: #126 See a difference? LOTR will go on to be an unforgotten movie as what Star Wars is. In twenty years ABM won't even be on the top 250 list, while LOTR will still be in the top 50. SO LOTR fans just remember. Academy doesn't mean sh*t. Time says it all.

It's possible we've become too familiar with this film and its two successors. Time, and multiple rewatching as, can cause us to forget how impossible the whole project seemed before the world saw it; we forget how strange and independent spirited parts of it are; we forget the references too and evidence of Jackson's roots in horror cinema; we forget the narrative excitement that propels a film adapted from a source that is more discursive, more of a scene-setter. Changes made from the text aid this, and the result is thrilling and wonder-inducing. It's a masterful piece of epic fantasy cinema, and the whole trilogy's place in my heart is secure.

Absolutely epic! The scale is truly mind blowing. Every filmmaking aspect is beyond incredible. Especially the score, set design & dialogue. The emotional weight & amazing battles seal it.

...I wasn't sure anyone would have ever guessed (except in a 2004 Fangoria magazine article written by Mexican visionary Guillermo del Toro) that New Zealand native Peter Jackson, the director behind the "goriest movie ever made" (1992's "Dead Alive"), would have been behind the epic three-film installment of "The Lord of the Rings" saga, which include "The Fellowship of the Ring" (2001), "The Two Towers" (2002), and Best Picture Oscar-winner "The Return of the King" (2003).

***Note*** This comment applies to all three movies, as it will be posted at each individual web page.

Not since "Star Wars" has this much hype surrounded films of this magnitude. But I guess such hype exists because J.R.R. Tolkien's books have one of the largest devoted fanbases of any popular reading material. I've never read Tolkien's original books, though several readers as well as fans of the movies have told me such knowledge is not required when viewing "The Lord of the Rings" films. "The Lord of the Rings" is the biggest movie I've ever seen, and there's a whole lot of story, 12+ hours to be exact, and I've spent the last two days viewing the extended versions of all three movies and they are breathtaking. There are many dazzling special effects shots over the course of the trilogy and epic battle sequences to put you in awe (many of which, in my view, do push the limits of the "PG-13" rating), not because it's action but because of how precise Jackson's direction is, and how unflinching the camera becomes when it's time for battle. The rousing, epic score by Howard Shore helps the viewer get "into" Jackson's vision of Middle-earth, and into the characters and on-screen action. Jackson has also breathtakingly transformed his New Zealand homeland into Tolkien's Middle-earth and when you watch these movies, you feel like you're really there, with the rest of its inhabitants. It is also pretty frightening too, with many jump scenes including the frequent and violent battle sequences between our heroes and "The Enemy," who include the brutish Orcs, Moria Orcs, Ringwraiths, and the unreal entity Sauron. And lastly, the cast does much more than bring the action to life, but instead live ("live" is italicized) their parts. Of course, I'm talking about the young Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin), who come into possession of the ancient One Ring and must journey to the hellish land Mordor to cast the talisman into a river of lava and bring its reign of evil to an end. Along the way, two other Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), necromancer Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), warrior Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Boromir (Sean Bean), elf Legalos (Orlando Bloom), and dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) aid them in their quest - together as a "fellowship of the ring." There are also plenty of other fantastic supporting roles from Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith plays a good guy), and Andy Serkis as the voice of the ever-creepy Gollum. I think J.R.R. Tolkien would be proud of Peter Jackson's take on his material, despite comments I've heard his son has made in undermining the director's vision. Someone once called "The Lord of the Rings" the greatest fantasy epic ever made; they were right.

10/10

Peter Jackson set out to make movies which the author of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, J.R.R. Tolkien would have endorsed. All three were resounding successes, though because of the film medium they necessarily varied from Tolkien's story-line. Purists may have issues with Jackson's theatrical license, but as someone who has read Tolkien's books several times and seen the films 4-5 times each, I never felt that Jackson went too far or compromised Tolkien's story, the mythology he developed or the wonderful characters he brought to life. Many have said what Jackson did could not be done. He has not only proved the nay-sayers wrong, but lovingly crafted a set of films which will, for many decades to come, stand out as a great achievement.

This is the first of three reviews I am publishing on IMDb for these films. I am labeling them Parts 1, 2, and 3 just in case anybody wants to read them in order. The reviews will be self-contained, but will also be enhanced by a chronological reading. My reviews will focus on the extended edition DVDs, though my comments are also relevant to the theatrical releases.

The Fellowship of the Ring introduces the key characters and the broad story arc of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Wizard Gandalf the Grey travels to a small town for small people (Hobbits)to help celebrate Bilbo Baggins' birthday. The very elderly Baggins doesn't look a day over 45, and soon it becomes apparent why. Since the great adventure of his life, a quest he was sent on by Gandalf himself, he has possessed the most powerful object in all of Middle Earth – The One Ring.

This ring is evil incarnate, with an insatiable lust for power, it taints every creature who possesses it and tries to work its way back to its creator – Dark Lord Sauron. Bilbo uses the ring to disappear, as he intends to spend his senescence with his friends the Elves in Rivendell. But activating the ring, he draws the attention of Lord Sauron from thousands of miles away in the land of Mordor. Realizing what has occurred, Gandalf scrambles to determine a course of action and recruits Bilbo's nephew Frodo and his loyal gardener Samwise to bear the ring to the Council of Elrond in Rivendell. Thusly, the seeds of the fellowship are planted in the soil of the Shire.

At this point, we are about 1/6th of the way through The Fellowship. Fairly soon thereafter, it becomes clear who will compose the fellowship, and who and what these people are. Though the succeeding films are not entitled "Fellowship", they follow the adventures of the surviving central characters. Characterization is done just as Tolkien did it in the original novel – by example not discourse.

For example, we are given hints to the identity of Strider (Mortenson) earlier on in the movie than in the novel, but the actual significance of this remains ambiguous until about midway through. Strong characterization is key to the success of the entire trilogy. To summarize, Peter Jackson, his team and cast – NAIL the characterization.

The casting and acting is perfect. It is very difficult to resist the temptation to single out Mortenson and McKellen for carrying their difficult roles so well (Strider/Aragorn and Gandalf), but why risk diminishing the contributions of the rest of the cast? Nobody mis-steps, and it is clear from the beginning that the entire cast was thoroughly and completed engaged with the task before them.

Tolkien believed that no film would ever do his work justice, and until this trilogy, he was correct.Peter Jackson and his team have managed to do exactly what they set out to. As Jackson himself has said in reference to the film trilogy, they set out to 'make Tolkien's film.' Jackson successfully drew out elements of all three books, expanding and contracting, rearranging, and sometimes adding whole subplots which are hinted at in the books, but not well explained, in order to adopt the grand story to the film medium. Arwen (Liv Tyler), daughter of Elrond and Elven lover of Aragorn, for example, is introduced early in the films and plays a role in the films which is much more equal to her significance than it was in the books.

The Howard Shore score is lovely, and its simple themes are used to great effect throughout all three movies. The musical collaborations improvising on Shore's basic themes are great, and, though they feature some prominent performers – are never weighed down by star-power.

Jackson made all three movies simultaneously. This technique allowed for perfect continuity, and permitted much greater flexibility in editing and post-production work than would normally be allowed. Knowing that he would need to establish and support his own fellowship to make this production work, he also knew that success would make the production legendary. So, he documented the creation of the films beautifully. Two complete DVDs full of documentary pieces are included in all three Special Edition Packages in the trilogy. Many are likely to be bored by the details in these documentaries, but those interested in the creative process behind the films will be provided with a more comprehensive view than I can remember ever seeing in any similar DVD package.

The Fellowship of the Rings is as true a representation of Tolkien's novel as can be imagined. Although some aspects of the stories in the novel were adapted to the screen, the essentials, the characters, and the overall story are not just recognizable, but ENHANCED by the film. What results is a film that is not just entertaining, but an enormous fulfillment of an undying wish of millions of fans around the world.

Very highly recommended.

Lord of The Rings is, to me, the industry standard for fantasy films. That being said, it doesn't particularly resonate with me personally. Despite the strongly communicated themes of the virtues of bravery and fellowship, the downfall of this film (and book it's based off) is its worldbuilding. LOTR makes use of "hard world building", the narrator (or in this case the director) is very explicit in their worldbuilding, you directly see their vision through the inclusion of many details and direct explanations of events, characters, and places. LOTR uses this to great success, sadly it just doesn't resonate that well with me. I prefer the opposite, "soft worldbuilding", implicitly building the world leaving more up to interpretation. I don't mean to say that soft worldbuilding is objectively better, it's just my preference. This is why Lord of The Rings isn't really my type of movie, despite this I still think it's objectively good, the cinematics shine through here, the use of wide shots really encapsulates the scope of the world that this story takes place in, something I did really appreciate. The characters are also great, so all in all I do really think this movie set the bar for fantasy films in Hollywood. But again, it just doesn't really appeal to my preferences.

I can't believe that so many of you people loved this movie! First of all, I completely agree with others who have complained about its lack of character development. What happened there in that Elf village where the Fellowship suddenly formed? "Okay, Frodo, you carry the ring, and we'll have an elf, a dwarf, 2 humans, an old wizard, and three other useless hobbits tag along with you." To the people who read the book (I did not), you need to remember that for a movie based on a book to be "GREAT," it should be self- sufficient. I should not have need a Lord of the Rings fanatic sitting next to me explaining every scene and telling me things like, "Oh yeah, those guys are called Ringwraiths... no, the bad guy is Sauron and the wizard who became bad is called Saruman, can't you keep these names straight? ... No, Tolkien couldn't use names like Fred and John because he needed unique and magical Middle Earth names! (except of course for the arbitrary naming of Sam the hobbit)...." What is all of this hogwash? Are you people all on drugs? Can't you see what kind of nonsense this movie is? Don't you realize that by reading the book, you got all of the character development and background story that the rest of us just did not get? Clearly, you all used your previous knowledge to fill in the gaps that the rest of us just had to endure. I'm just stunned at how many weirdo Dungeon and Dragon freaks there are out there who ranked this movie so highly.

Bottom line: This movie was terrible in every sense of the word. Long, boring, filled with useless scenery shots (which were really just CGI enhanced shots anyway) and shots of Elijah Wood's blank expression as he stared at the ring in his hand, devoid of any character development (I couldn't even remember main character's names, let alone motivations or backgrounds), and filled with cheesey action sequences that made "The Mummy Returns" look like a masterpiece. You need to be a huge Tolkien/Fantasy fanatic to appreciate this movie. Otherwise, go see "Ocean's Eleven", which is much better and more entertaining in every respect.