Customer Reviews


365 Reviews
5 star:
 (277)
4 star:
 (38)
3 star:
 (16)
2 star:
 (17)
1 star:
 (17)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


135 of 145 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Every Flaw Perfected
Don't get me wrong, I loved the Fellowship of the Ring when I saw it at the cinema but I could recognise that there were some flaws there too. However, with this extended version all these flaws have been rectified and the movie is a lot stronger for it.
First the major one - Lothlorien. In the cinema, like a lot of people, I came out mumbling about the wasted...
Published on 19 Nov 2002 by Mr Iain Reid

versus
27 of 29 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars To Clear Up The Doubts With This Steelbook Release
1) The discs included are the same discs as were released in the first part of the Extended Edition Trilogy Blu-Ray Box Set Release
- that means :-
2 Blu-ray discs for the extended version of the film
2 DVD discs of the extras (known as the appendices to the Blu-ray extended release)
1 DVD disc known as "behind the scenes" which was the disc made by...
Published 6 months ago by DM Bunny


‹ Previous | 135 36 37 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

0 of 9 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars eyyy, 30 May 2005
By A Customer
The best of the trilogy, i believe that felloship is the best return of the king is the second best and two towers is the worst. This one is more true to the book than the other two.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 54 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Great effects but very dull, 12 Jan 2004
By 
Mr. W. Robertson "warrenr77" (Brighton, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
I have now clenched my teeth and watched this film twice as I really wanted to like it but it is boring. The problem with the books is that they have been surpassed on many occasions and it is a shame that the first really big budget modern fantasy has gone back to source material rather than looking at what is available in the genre. The Lord of the Rings is very important due to it's historical significance but as entertainment it sucks. Unfortunately the film version is no better.
The visual effects are truly amazing and the temptation to jump to the pure action parts is great to feast your eyes on them. The story is set at an agonising pace but rather than allowing the viewer to luxuriate in the world Peter Jackson has lovingly created it saps hard at the will to live, the viewer little more than a gibbering wreck by the end of disk one! I do tend to enjoy long films as they offer greater scope. The characters on all sides are boring beyond belief. Sam is without doubt the most tedious character ever invented and Frodo fares little better. The other hobbits are simply annoying half wits and the rest of the characters make no real impression either way.
I appreciate I am in the minority but afraid my two stars are for the visuals, the rest gets nothing. Very, very poor. Come back Conan, all is forgiven.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


28 of 150 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars An exciting first of 3 films, but a loose book adaptation, 2 Sep 2002
By 
D. C. Pim "Triestino" (Trieste Italy) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
As a film, taken on its own, The Fellowship of the Ring is an enjoyable and exciting first of three, deserving much of its acclaim. What is it that fails to please? The cast is mostly excellent; McKellen as Gandalf does a fine job although lacking a certain edge and quickness to his temper. His friendship with Bilbo and Frodo it seems, could not be suggested by the script (clearly Jackson didn't think McKellen good enough) but in the now usual "in yer face" mentality of modern film making, had to be made obvious by a pair of strange huggy/cuddly scenes early on. Mortensen as Aragorn was excellent although a full 10 years too young for the part. Davies and Bloom as Gimli and Legolas do a great job of two of the more neutral characters in the story. All the Hobbits were good, but disappointingly, the relationship between Merry and Pippin and Frodo is never explained, so the appearance on the quest of the first two appears quite accidental and their parts have been reduced, so far at least, to being rather clownish. Bean does a fair job as Boromoir but his lean physique is at odds with Boromir's described bulk and strength as Gondor's chief warrior. Clearly Jackson felt female roles were lacking and so swopped Glorfindel for Arwen, but then failed to allow Blanchette enough force as Galadriel- a strong female character if there ever was one. A full 25% of the first book has been cut; the hobbits leap onto the Buckleberry ferry after a jog escaping from a Black Rider, and the next moment arrive in Bree. Its this strange pacing of the first bit of the book that disappoints most. Jackson is clearly unaware that Tolkien was a great lover of the English coutryside, basing the Shire on an area of Lancashire around Clitheroe. In Jackson's hands, the Shire doesn't exist (apart from a Muttonbird sitting atop a scarecrow and a field of Maize for God's sake!), nor the careful pace of the journey, through a Golden Autumn, from Hobbiton to Bree, taking in the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow downs. Hobbiton disappoints dreadfully, appearing to consist of one mill, a pair of houses and three Hobbit holes. Jackson falls into the worst trap of all-that of making the Hobbits appear ridiculous. If you want to understand Tolkien's image of Hobbiton it is enough to see his own sketch in The Hobbit-a rural, agricutural society, with neat, orderly fields of corn etc. Jackson has Hobbits subsisting on what vegetables they grow in two square metres of front garden!. The interior of Bag End is acceptable but its scale is minute. Again, take a look at Tolkien's sketch of Bilbo's front hall in The Hobbit, where you will see a large front door and lofty ceiling as befits a desirable country residence. In Jackson's interpretation Bag End is roughly as big as an average semi-detached and he believes much amusement is to be gained from Gandalf bashing his head first on a chandelier and then on a wooden beam. It all makes Hobbiton rather twee and daft. The sense of journey on foot which the book portrays, together with the growing sense of danger, of being followed, is completely lacking in the film. The Black Riders do not loom out of the fog or imply evil, their presence has to be made obvious and, again, "in yer face". Just before arriving at Rivendell, the flight to the ford is made in broad daylight and the Black Riders lack any particular sense of threat - they are simply guys dressed in black chasing Arwen and Frodo on horseback; the direction here is particularly poor.
Whilst I don't see how most of Tolkien's poetry could reasonably have been included or set to music without greatly lengthening the film (some was undertaken by Donald Swann, many years ago), I think some could have been left in. Jackson included none of it anyway!. The musical score is terrible. For heaven's sake! there are enough talented musicians out there who could have written something quite remarkable, quite memorable, and I don't just mean on a Celtic theme. However, apart from a nice piece by Enya for the closing credits, there is nothing memorable. Close your eyes and you could be listening to music from anything - droning choral music throughout, not a single note of harp music, for example. The script, at times, is little better; Gimli's 'no-one tossess a Dwarve!' is an example - was the script writer serious? Cinematographically, the film could be a lot better. Jackson seems to think that the New Zealand location makes everything perfect, (strangely there's not a single scene of this first film that could not have been filmed in Europe or the U.S.) and as a consequence, most of the natural beauty which Tolkien loved is lost. Design, especially of Rivendell, is excellent though not seen at its best since any scene involving Elves has been filmed in a strange bluish light. Lothlorien is particularly galling. it is described by Tolkien as a golden country, the autumn leaves remaining on the Mallorn trees until Spring. The country is described as being in a state of almost surreal health with strong bright sunlight pervading the daytime. But Jackson prefered it filmed in a sort of permanent dusk. No wonder the Fellowship only stayed there for a day! escaping with only Frodo, it seems, being given any gift - it's never explained where the rest of the Fellowship acquired their Elvish cloaks and pins. In short, although the film does not lack excitement and tension (in for example the mines of Moria), and of course special effects, what it lacks is a strong sense of natural beauty, and of the sense of a long journey on foot. Pacing the film better would have helped, as would have a better script and musical score. Doubtless some people would complain at its length, but personally, if it had been a more faithful adaptation, and better photographed I would have happily watched another hour.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 25 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars "Q: Where Would You Rather Be? A: Anywhere But Here...", 20 July 2007
By 
Brent Rohde (United States of America) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Two Disc Theatrical Edition) [DVD] [2001] (DVD)
Follow in "The Lord of the Rings" creator's (J.R.R. Tolkien's) footsteps. Project a malevolent universe. Invent a world and animate it with creatures in conflict. Make the conflict a battle between good and evil, but don't identify clearly the moral value or purpose of either side. In fact, remove morality's essence altogether by eliminating the power of choice for your characters. Emphasize the corruptibility of men. Glamorize the supernatural. Dwell interminably on the preparations for and the wreaking of violence and destruction, on the fragility of hope and happiness. Name the scene of action: Middle-earth. Sound like an environment you'd care to envision? Would you "live" there? If so, fate alone will decide its survival and your own. You can visit this predetermined "paradise" by watching/enduring/suffering Peter Jackson's elaborately filmed adaptation of Tolkien's epic trilogy, which begins with "The Fellowship of the Ring."

I hold it is true that what is not worth contemplating in life is not worth contemplating in art. For its dismaying lack of meaningful moral definition, its pervasive pictorial ugliness, the quantity of its scenes of mind-numbing graphic violence, and its minimizing of the value of happiness, "The Lord of the Rings" films--including this one--ought to be shunned and damned.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


14 of 90 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Buy the book - it's better, 25 Jun 2002
By 
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Two Disc Theatrical Edition) [DVD] [2001] (DVD)
If you like hollywood special effects movies with lots of action and little substance, this is for you. If you enjoyed the depth of the original book, don't bother with the movie. Your money would be better spent on buying the BBCs excellent radio adaptation with Ian Holm (although he plays Frodo rather than Bilbo).
It is really Jackson's Lord of the Rings rather than Tolkien's. He turns the characters and story on its head so that it no longer makes any sense. Aragorn has this silly modern guilt complex about how his ancestor did not destroy the ring (the most dangerous thing in the world)...
It is a pity because he had the cast and technology, but he had to twist the story into something silly.
To give an idea about how different the book and movie are, it is like the difference between Wim Wender's Wings of Desire and the Hollywood remake, City of Angles. This version of Lord of the Rings is shallow eye candy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 23 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Great Film, Average DVD, 18 Dec 2003
By A Customer
The Lord of the Ring: Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition is brilliant as a film, especially with the added scenes it makes the film make so much more sense and I can't recommend it enough, however the DVD itself is of average production...
I have always hated films that you have to turn the disc over halfway through as you lose so much of the film experience, Fellowship of the Ring is no exception. Other people might not feel the same way, but if you can't fit the whole film on to one DVD then you just shouldn't do it, even if it is at the expense of losing the extra 30 minutes of the film.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


13 of 94 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Desecration, 23 Nov 2002
By 
James Patterson (Stockton on Tees, Cleveland United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Two Disc Theatrical Edition) [DVD] [2001] (DVD)
Let's face it, this debacle will have sent Tolkien spinning in his grave. I have no problem with directors making changes to render novels more cinematic but not for the purpose of satisfying their egos, which is the case here. Jackson has no feeling for the world he is attempting to portray, imagining it to be something akin to the world of Celtic myth and spirituality. But that is by the by. His greatest crime is his decision to come up with virtually a new script and to make pointless alterations to the plot: leaving Tolkien's words and story behind at times again is not something I have a problem with in principle -- the problem is that, as John Marriot said of George Lucas, Jackson "can't write and he can't direct". Recall the scene at Rivendell when the 9 walkers commit themselves to the Fellowship: "you shall have my axe ... and my bow ... and my sword ...'! These words are what one would generally expect to hear in a school play written by the kids, not in a million dollar movie, still less as a substitute for an outstanding writer. Furthermore, at the same time as he vandalises the text and the plot, Jackson makes extraordinary efforts to preserve the two things which even the most diehard fans would have happily waved goodbye to, namely the hobbits' furry feet and the difference in proportion between the hobbits and the "big people": frankly I found the latter absurd. I am astonished by the positive response to this travesty -- again let me repeat I have no problem with making worthwhile alterations to novels for purposes of the screen, big or small -- and expect to convince no one, but I thought it should be said.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 71 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars I Tried So Hard To Like Lord of the Rings, 11 Jun 2003
By A Customer
I really did try to like The fellowship of the Rings and then even harder to like The Two Towers, but I am affraid to say that I may be in a minority who just cannot get there head around it.
The main focus of my dissappointment is quite simply the plot, it is so hard to follow and at points to even understand where it is going.
On seeing both installments i could not see the connection between the first and second film or even any development in the plot, to the point that at times it seemed that there was no progress or forward movement. At times it was quite simply impossible to follow.
I appreciate i am in the minority and on the plus side the films were visually very stunning, hence i have given two stars on that basis.
To conclude i feel that the younger audience simply enjoy it because of the special effects and charecters, and maybe not because they follow whats going on.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


11 of 91 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars A bit of a let-down., 28 Aug 2002
By 
MRS J A GLENISTER (Reading, Berkshire United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
Ok, I seem to be in something of a minority here as I found this film a disappointment after all the hype surrounding it.
In all sincerity, I was painfully bored for the first 30-45 mins as the film tediously worked itself through the inevitable character studies before any real action kicked in. I am a real fantasy film addict and something of a film buff in general but I am often very easily pleased with cheesy B movie horrors etc, so I'm not a hard viewer to entertain. BUT, this failed dismally for me. I very nearly turned off on a few occassions but stuck in there.
I was moderately glad I did as there are indeed some fabulous scenes with impeccible special effects. Some of the large scale scenes are breathtaking and exciting but they are unable, in themselves, to support the film enough to make this a real classic.
I found many of thre characters shallow and there were some poor performances from otherwise reliable actors like Cate Blanchett.
Don't get me wrong. It's OK and worth a look. BUT, it has missing the X factor that classic/epic films like Star Wars and Alien had. It's hard to put a finger on what's wrong with it but it doesn't have any real feeling/passion to it. It's rather two dimensional with no characters that I personally felt endeared to or interested in.
It's done on a very grand scale indeed but then that's expected today with all the special effects wizardry out there. Sadly, that doesn't compare to that magic ingredient that makes a true cult/classic film and you get the feeling the film makers here expected fabulous SFX to carry the whole thing on its own, to the point they needn't bother putting much effort in elsewhere. It makes the mistake that SO many films do now - it relies on computer imagery where-ever possible, even when it is clearly inappropriate. This means many scenes are so obviously SFX, when taking the time to put a real human in a mask would have been more realistic and probably more scary. Gollum is a prime example. His SFX are rubbish and he looks ludicrous!
When you think of the ground-breaking effects from Alien (now a whole 23 years old!!!) and Terminator (about 17/18 years old?) it seems inexcusable that LOR could present you with something as amaturish as it's version of Gollum. Awful.
I come from the generation that studied all the Hobbbit books at school - I grew up with it and loved it. This film doesn't, for me anyway, do the FEEL of the book justice.
I honestly ended up not caring if Frodo set the world to rights or not. I think that was largely down the the flat performance given by Elijha Wood who, whilst he looks the part, seems to sleepwalk his way through the film.
I just think that a little more patience, more graft and less SFX and a Director demanding more from his cast would have resolved the weakness in this offering.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 50 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not a bad piece of work as such..., 30 May 2002
By A Customer
It can certainly be said that much work, time and effort has been put in to the making of this film, and I have to say it certainly does strike you in that manner. The characters are cute and 'fairytale-like', the heroes are cetainly herioc, the scenes are breathtaking, and there never seems to be a dull moment.
However, I have to say that when I came away from watching it, it didnt particularly leave me gasping for more.
The story itself seems interesting and exciting enough, but there does not seem to be that much of a storyline - the ring is bad and we must get rid of it by taking it to this place somewhere. Thats about it, and I cant really say that something like 3 1/2 hours of film was really necessary to show this.
I think the problem we have here is that without reading the book (as in Harry Potter) you dont really understand what everything going on is all about. There were many times when I remember thinking "whhhaaat...?"and it seems that the film is just too strung out.
This film is trying to mirror the novel, and it takes too long doing it. I came away from this film feeling that I had wasted my time because I hadn't gone to the cinema to read a long-winding, never ending, samey novel, and at the end, it seemed that hardly anything as regards to the story had been achieved, and I thought "uugh oh yeah its a TRILOGY - the story wont be finished even if I go again!"
I apologise to all those who greatly enjoyed this film and I am not saying that you were wrong to enjoy it, as some of the scenes and suspense was very exciting, but the story itself seemed to be too much of a long slog - this is not one for the casual watcher!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 135 36 37 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Only search this product's reviews