Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Review:Fellowship of the Ring

CmdrTaco posted more than 13 years ago | from the if-you-only-see-one-movie-this-christmas dept.

Movies 871

One of the best perks about my job is the excuse to skip out and catch the first showing of Lord of the Rings at the local theater. I did just that, and if you hit the magic link below you can read my comments on the film. I'm going to keep it short, and spoiler free. In a word? Wow.

Everyone has expectations about this movie. I imagine most of you have read the books. You all have ideas about what a Balrog looks like. What Gandalf is like. And yes, hell, even what the ring should look like. And you simply can't expect a movie to meet everyones ideas... but this thing came just as close as I could have hoped.

In short, there aren't many great movies that come out any more... but this is one of them. Everyone seems nearly perfectly cast. The special effects are nothing short of brilliant. The sets from the Shire on out look so wonderful and believable that you just wanna move in... until the Ring Wraiths show up and make everything all miserable.

Elijah Woods pulls off Frodo quite well. Yeah maybe he fell down one to many times, but the angst is believable. And Gandalf? His desire for the ring is intense and his actions are truly heroic.

I can't imagine a film adaptation of perhaps the best book ever written being done better. The first 45 minutes are a bit slow going, but once the Fellowship starts coming together I just didn't want to blink.

I could find things to nitpick about: some scenes the audio mix wasn't quite right, but that could partially have been the mediocre sound system in the theater: dialog was a bit muffled under the music. Some of the effects were noticably CG, but those were rare. Quite frankly nobody has done CG monsters as convincingly in a film to date. There was a handful of shots that looked faked, and all the rest seemed as perfect as could be.

God damn. The hype is warranted. The wait was worth it. But 12 months for the next one? At least I have my copy of FFX to keep me occupied during maybe 40 hours of the next 8,760 or so I have to wait. But who's counting?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good God! (-1)

I Have a Hard (538104) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728190)

Yes, this article is news for nerds, but it is not stuff that matters.

Re:Good God! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728206)

News for Pandas. Stuff that chews bamboo.

Re:Good God! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728321)

Carleton hasnt won the panda games in ages. suck it down Kathryn Turber

First Carleton University Post (-1)

core10k (196263) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728347)

Fuuuuuck you! Ottaaaaaawa U!

PANDA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728192)

First Panda

Spoiler-free? (4, Insightful)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728194)

It's based on a 50-plus-year-old book. Whoever hasn't heard of the plot by now probably has been living under a rock. Why bother keeping it spoiler-free?

- A.P.

Re:Spoiler-free? (1, Troll)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728201)

On the same token, why bother to discuss the plot since everyone knows it?

Re:Spoiler-free? (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728377)

On the same token...

Hahhahha! You fucking nerds crack me up!

Re:Spoiler-free? (5, Insightful)

cisco_rob (443705) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728208)

Because hopefully this will be a mythos that a 10-13 yr old audience can enjoy, because as a culture we have very few. Those kids might not have heard of the books, but might see the movies, and might read this site...

maybe a long shot...

Re:Spoiler-free? (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728293)

Because hopefully this will be a mythos that a 10-13 yr old audience can enjoy,

'Fraid not, PG-13 means they won't be admitted unless they're with mom and dad -- no 13 year old would be caught dead going out with their parents...

Re:Spoiler-free? (1)

bmoyles (61470) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728314)

Oh sure, and we know about ALL those theaters that actually abide by ratings. Remind me of that next time I'm in a R-rated flic with 14 year olds behind me talking.

Re:Spoiler-free? (2)

disappear (21915) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728334)

PG-13 means they won't be admitted unless they're with mom and dad

Er, Duh --- PG-13 is "Parents Strongly Cautioned." No refusal of kids under 13 without their parents. Only rated R is actually Restricted -- that's why it's R, remember.

Re:Spoiler-free? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728298)

Well of course! Like, duh, man! Most of the people on slashdot are in that 10-13 yr. old range. Or, like, something. YouknowwutImsayin yomesain? Aye ayt?

Re:Spoiler-free? (3, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728339)

Ah yes, one of the best aspects of this film is that it will introduce children to the magic of not reading...

(Ok, ok, it's The Onion's joke about Harry Potter but I thought it was amusing...)

Re:Spoiler-free? (-1)

HBD (450014) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728352)

i am 16 and i read most everything off the net, and watch a ton of movies, past that i hate reading out of books, growing up with html pages makes it hard to focus on something so incredably plain.

Re:Spoiler-free? (5, Insightful)

cliffy2000 (185461) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728212)

Well, this is a mainstream adaptation of the series... and not everyone has read Tolkien.
To have spoilers wouldn't be right. Don't assume that since you know the plot that everyone does.

Re:Spoiler-free? (1)

pi radians (170660) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728217)

Especially on this site. I'd be surprised if there was anyone here who didn't know the story.

Yes, I love to generalize people, its what I do best. =)

Re:Spoiler-free? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728260)


I don't know the plot - not everyone cares about fantasy stories.

Re:Spoiler-free? (1)

BLAMM! (301082) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728304)

Well, of course! Everyone loves to generalize!

Re:Spoiler-free? (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728224)

I'm yet to figure out what a spoiler would be!

Re:Spoiler-free? (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728310)

A spoiler would be like someone telling you Saruman is really Frodo's father, before you had a chance to see the movie. :)

Re:Spoiler-free? (1)

Peter Dyck (201979) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728240)

You can still spoil the movie.

I don't want to hear what was left out of the book or see/hear about how certain parts of the book were portrayed.

That's why I've been avoiding all the trailers and commercials and told my friends who'll see the movie before me that I'll tear them a new goatse.cx sized asshole if they tell me anything about the movie.

Re:Spoiler-free? (2, Interesting)

er0ck (267290) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728255)

Hey, all of the great Greek plays were known to the audience, but people still turned out to see how it was portrayed on stage.

Re:Spoiler-free? (2)

Wolfstar (131012) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728258)

My wife, for one. (And yes, she does read Slashdot. Ain't I lucky?)

For another, it was announced well in advance, and shown in the previews, that the basic plot has been altered. There was NO love interest mentioned in Fellowship, yet it's in the movie according to the previews I've seen.

THAT is why spoilers are kept out, and why they should be. I haven't seen it yet. And I just simply cannot wait much longer to see it...

Re:Spoiler-free? (1)

Foochar (129133) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728311)

No love intrest? The intrest between Arwen and Aragon is there in Fellowship it is just a whole lot more muted. In the book it is presented as a love that could never be, but Aragorn loves her so completely that he can love no one of his own race.

Re:Spoiler-free? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728381)

Sort of like Michael Jackson.

Re:Spoiler-free? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728320)

By wife, I assume you mean JonKatz.

Re:Spoiler-free? (1, Redundant)

cybrpnk (94636) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728278)

Hey, I've never read LOTR and haven't got a clue what it's about except for taking a ring into the heart of bad-guy country to destroy it. Some geeks stuck with hard sci-fi and never moved into fantasy / D&D. I'm one of them. Spoiler free is appreciated.

Re:Spoiler-free? (5, Informative)

Brazzo (22202) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728323)

Why? Simple: Peter Jackson changed the story, ever so slightly.

Granted, it's not huge. There are just minor changes. If you're indifferent about the Trilogy, or even if you're just a casual fan, they won't matter that much. Heck, the changes make for a more marketable, more Americanized Tolkien.

But, if you're like me, and you're a Tolkien nut, they're big enough to cause you to pause during the movie. They're big enough to make you walk away and think, "Hmm. Not bad, but..."

It was a good movie. It wasn't, as a friend called it, "The Best Movie, Ever." It definitely wasn't as good as, say, the BBC Radio production. Aside from reading the books themselves, that's still the best adaptation I've seen.

Still. No spoilers in the review, because there are some people, like me, who've been avoiding all the crap about the movies - I didn't want this to be another Star Wars: Episode I, where I knew almost every line of dialog before I walked into the theater...

Re:Spoiler-free? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728364)

"Ever so slightly?" Bah humbug! Having Frodo gun down Gandalf as he's chased by the rolling rock I thought was a bit off, and as for the Bilbo Baggins dream sequence with "Bilbina Baggins"...

It was a wonder they didn't get Silvester Stallone to star quite honestly.

Re:Spoiler-free? (1, Flamebait)

Breace (33955) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728351)

Whoever hasn't heard of the plot by now probably has been living under a rock.

Yup, I would consider living anywhere outside the US living under a rock too, if I where American.

Because I wouldn't even know there WAS anything outside the US! Sjeesj, WHEN are you guys going to learn that everything that's tradition in the US is not always known to people from/in other countries?

I'm from Holland (since not too long live in the US, actually) and had never heard of the book until my (US) wife bought it. I would like to see the movie, and yes, he would have spoiled it.

Ho Hum (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728196)

Saw it last night. If it wasn't the nasty-smelling geeks dressed as an hobbit, it was the idiot banshees without shoes.

It's just a stupid book with a bad story. I wish I hadn't been tricked into this by my geek friend.

Go Kathryn Thurber! The Panda! Maenad!Ex hooker! (-1)

core10k (196263) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728203)

Pan DA! Pan DA! [google.com]

Re:Go Kathryn Thurber! The Panda! Maenad!Ex hooker (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728236)

Here it is again.

After 5 minutes of looking, CmdrTaco's gf's site & pic at bottom [fent.net]

-Dead Fart Warrior

Re:Go Kathryn Thurber! The Panda! Maenad!Ex hooker (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728313)

shes hot
im jelous

Re:Go Kathryn Thurber! The Panda! Maenad!Ex hooker (-1)

five dollar troll (541247) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728329)

wrong one, fartsy. That's taco's current girlfriend (stalking victim)...we're searching for an old flame of his, who apparently was just an "online relationship".

ending?? (0)

slashpot (11017) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728216)

So is that how the books end - or was the movie just the first part of the story?

Re:ending?? (1)

321 (544755) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728264)

That is just the end of the first book. That was a crappy ending, I know that is how the first book ends but it really makes me want to see the next 2 movies.

Read the Books!!!


End and Beginning (2, Redundant)

virg_mattes (230616) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728322)

The movie was the first book. The next two movies (due out December 2002 and 2003) cover the rest of the story.


Stop Doing Reviews! (-1)

egg troll (515396) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728222)

Jesus, Slashdot wouldn't recognize a decent review if it came up and sat on the editors face. I suggest the editors look at some sites that do nothing but reviews, such as pitchforkmedia.com and theonionavclub.com to see how a real review is done. I've seen sixth graders write book reports that are vastly superior to any of Slashdot's reviews. Perhaps they should add a sixth grader to their staff (but make sure its a girl! If its a boy, Jon Katz will probably try to molest him.)

Re:Stop Doing Reviews! (-1)

trollercoaster (250101) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728280)

Yeah, and what worries me is guys like Taco and Katz going to movies that will attract large numbers of young geeky boys to a dark theater.


The Books (-1, Offtopic)

bdesham (533897) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728232)

Speaking of the LoTR books, does The Hobbit come before The Fellowship of the Ring? I think I'll start to read the books, but I'll probably be incredibly confused if I read them out of order :)

Re:The Books (1)

PsychoKiller (20824) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728279)

The Hobbit is a prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it is not necessary to understand the trilogy, as it takes place about 60 years later.

In a Word... (2)

virg_mattes (230616) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728291)

Yes. Read The Hobbit, then LOTR.


Good but not great (2, Insightful)

craigeyb (518670) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728234)

LoTR is good but not great. It does a great job of bringing a mainstream story to the silver screen, but it doesn't introduce any new concepts or demonstrate any real creativity. This makes it a good film. Go ahead and flame me for this.

Re:Good but not great (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728267)

So what kind of new concepts should it have introduced? The movie is based on, as someone pointed out, a 50-year-old set of books. What would you have called "real creativity"?

Re:Good but not great (1)

10 Speed (519184) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728307)

A movie's greatness should not nessecarily be measured by what new wizz bangs things it incorporates, but how it presents the message or story....

And in this case the movie does a great job of representing the book, it does present fairly closely what I imagined when I was reading. Also this seems to be the case for many of the movie's viewers. So I believe that the movie has done a great job of presenting the story...

This review's good (4, Informative)

meehawl (73285) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728238)

This one [nypress.com] says:
For long sections of the film, I didn't take any notes; it's hard to scribble when your jaw is on the floor. ... Visually, the film is astonishing-and nearly unique-because it deploys so much cutting-edge special effects technology with so little fuss. It's arguably the first film with hundreds of spectacularly busy, yet curiously matter-of-fact, digital effects shots that somehow don't take you out of the movie.

A chance to pass the book on (2, Informative)

spineboy (22918) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728241)

The trilogy enjoyed a resurgence in th 70's and the movie will give it another boost into the limelight again. I hope that this will always be a popular novel - a gateway into reading sci-fi/fantasy for many people. I gave it to my nephew and now he can't get enough of it.

Re:A chance to pass the book on (2, Offtopic)

ellem (147712) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728308)

It was revived in the 70s and you have Jimmy Page and Robert Plant to thank for that.

'Cos in the Darkest Depts of Modor
I met a girl so fair
But Gollum and the evil one
crept up and slipped away with her, her, her yeah
Misty Mountain Hop

Liv Tyler (2, Funny)

chemical55 (446280) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728243)

The movie is amazing and I'm not gonna go into it. (Just see it)

But Liv Tyler gets on my nerves. How dumb can somebody look? Her elvish was annoying and really took me outta the movie.

Re:Liv Tyler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728283)

She was acting Elvish? You mean she acts more like The King than Arwen? Sheesh, no wonder it got on your nervers.

Thank ya, thank ya very much.

Best Book Ever Written!?! (0, Flamebait)

mr_don't (311416) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728244)

Best book ever written??!?!

Tolkien was a professor of english and was especially interested in old english language. LotR is as much an exercise in language and a forum for Tolkien's own "retro" poetry as an epic novel, but if you haven't ever read a better book, maybe you should put down the O'reilly and take a literature class!

Re:Best Book Ever Written!?! (2, Offtopic)

cybrpnk (94636) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728385)

Here's [petertheobald.com] some alternative choices for Best Sci-Fi book ever written; add your vote!

LOTR icon (4, Insightful)

TeleoMan (529859) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728245)

C'mon Taco... high time for a LOTR/Tolkien icon on slashdot methinks...

My Review (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728246)

We invest Hobbits with qualities that cannot be visualized. In my mind, they are good-hearted, bustling, chatty little creatures who live in twee houses or burrows, and dress like the merry men of Robin Hood--in smaller sizes, of course. They eat seven or eight times a day, like to take naps, have never been far from home and have eyes that grow wide at the sounds of the night. They are like children grown up or grown old, and when they rise to an occasion, it takes true heroism, for they are timid by nature and would rather avoid a fight.

Such notions about Hobbits can be found in "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," but the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off center stage. If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.

The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.

Wondering if the trilogy could possibly be as action-packed as this film, I searched my memory for sustained action scenes and finally turned to the books themselves, which I had not read since the 1970s. The chapter "The Bridge of Khazad-Dum" provides the basis for perhaps the most sensational action scene in the film, in which Gandalf the wizard stands on an unstable rock bridge over a chasm, and must engage in a deadly swordfight with the monstrous Balrog. This is an exciting scene, done with state-of-the-art special effects and sound that shakes the theater. In the book, I was not surprised to discover, the entire scene requires less than 500 words.

Settling down with my book, the one-volume, 1969 India paper edition, I read or skimmed for an hour or so. It was as I remembered it. The trilogy is mostly about leaving places, going places, being places, and going on to other places, all amid fearful portents and speculations. There are a great many mountains, valleys, streams, villages, caves, residences, grottos, bowers, fields, high roads, low roads, and along them the Hobbits and their larger companions travel while paying great attention to mealtimes. Landscapes are described with the faithful detail of a Victorian travel writer. The travelers meet strange and fascinating characters along the way, some of them friendly, some of them not, some of them of an order far above Hobbits or even men. Sometimes they must fight to defend themselves or to keep possession of the ring, but mostly the trilogy is an unfolding, a quest, a journey, told in an elevated, archaic, romantic prose style that tests our capacity for the declarative voice.

Reading it, I remembered why I liked it in the first place. It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands that there were many pages to go, many sights to see, many adventures to share. I cherished the way it paused for songs and poems, which the movie has no time for. Like The Tale of Genji, which some say is the first novel, "The Lord of the Rings" is not about a narrative arc or the growth of the characters, but about a long series of episodes in which the essential nature of the characters is demonstrated again and again (and again). The ring, which provides the purpose for the journey, serves Tolkien as the ideal MacGuffin, motivating an epic quest while mostly staying right there on a chain around Frodo Baggins' neck.

Peter Jackson, the New Zealand director who masterminded this film (and two more to follow, in a $300 million undertaking), has made a work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, and there are small touches that are just right; the Hobbits may not look like my idea of Hobbits (may, indeed, look like full-sized humans made to seem smaller through visual trickery), but they have the right combination of twinkle and pluck in their gaze--especially Elijah Wood as Frodo and Ian Holm as the worried Bilbo.

Yet the taller characters seem to stand astride the little Hobbit world and steal the story away. Gandalf the good wizard (Ian McKellen) and Saruman the treacherous wizard (Christopher Lee) and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who is the warrior known as Strider, are so well-seen and acted, so fearsome in battle, that we can't imagine the Hobbits getting anywhere without them. The elf Arwen (Liv Tyler), the Elf Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Arwen's father, Elrond (Hugo Weaving), are not small like literary elves ("very tall they were," the book tells us), and here they tower like Norse gods and goddesses, accompanied by so much dramatic sound and lighting that it's a wonder they can think to speak, with all the distractions.

Jackson has used modern special effects to great purpose in several shots, especially one where a massive wall of water forms and reforms into the wraiths of charging stallions. I like the way he handles crowds of Orcs in the big battle scenes, wisely knowing that in a film of this kind, realism has to be tempered with a certain fanciful fudging. The film is remarkably well made. But it does go on, and on, and on--more vistas, more forests, more sounds in the night, more fearsome creatures, more prophecies, more visions, more dire warnings, more close calls, until we realize this sort of thing can continue indefinitely. "This tale grew in the telling," Tolkien tells us in the famous first words of his foreword; it's as if Tolkien, and now Jackson, grew so fond of the journey, they dreaded the destination.

That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours. Perhaps it will look exactly as you think it should. But some may regret that the Hobbits have been pushed out of the foreground and reduced to supporting characters. And the movie depends on action scenes much more than Tolkien did. In a statement last week, Tolkien's son Christopher, who is the "literary protector" of his father's works, said, "My own position is that 'The Lord of the Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." That is probably true, and Jackson, instead of transforming it, has transmuted it, into a sword-and-sorcery epic in the modern style, containing many of the same characters and incident.

Re:My Review (5, Funny)

Chundra (189402) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728367)

They eat seven or eight times a day, like to take naps, have never been far from home and have eyes that grow wide at the sounds of the night. They are like children grown up or grown old, and when they rise to an occasion, it takes true heroism, for they are timid by nature and would rather avoid a fight.

Good god! I never thought of it before, but you have just described the vast majority of the IT department where I work. No wonder geeks love Tolkien so much.

Nothing like seeing it (1)

moogla (118134) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728249)

at 12:01 in a theatre will some of your closest friends. The whole time we were leaning forward with our mouths slackjawed, trying not to blink too much lest we miss something.

The one thing that was disappointing was the previews. Every one of them was flipped between cuts so fast that after 5 minutes or so, you felt like you were on speed. Thankfully, the opening credits to LOTR were calm, and unoverwhelming.

My Theater Experience (3, Offtopic)

Shaheen (313) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728252)

My suitemates and I went to the midnight showing of Lord of the Rings yesterday at a local theater. I was totally impressed by the movie's accuracy. The Gates of Gondor were exactly as I had imagined them when reading the book. Wow.

However, two things made my experience not the best it could have been:

1. I half expected Elrond to say "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson"

2. The audio in our showing became out of synch with the movie during the battle at the Gates of Gondor. I can't believe that I had to sit through the death of Boromir with the audio lagging by 5 seconds!

Re:My Theater Experience (1)

headbonz (156721) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728362)

We just got back to the office after seeing a noon show in northern Virginia and had the same experience with the sound synchronization during Boromir's death scene and the 3-4 minutes after it. We all bitched at the theater and got refunds, but I wonder now if it was the theater's fault. Could it be a problem with specific prints of the film?


Lack of ol' Tom? (1, Interesting)

ignipotentis (461249) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728253)

At first I was dissapointed at the lack of Tom Bombadil (sp), but afterwords, I realzied he didn't play that big of a part, and it was probably good to cut the movie at 3 hours, instead of dragging it out. Thanks goes to the producers and screen play writers for thinking ahead...

Gandalf (1)

vinnythenose (214595) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728254)

I haven't seen it yet, but from the previews Gandalf doesn't seem how I pictured him from the books. Physically yah he's pretty close (Except the hobbit clearly states the beard goes to his toes, but I imagine that could be annoying for the actor)

Perhaps it will flesh out more when I see the movie, but the previews made him look ultra-super serious which I don't think he was all the time. He was pretty mellow except in extremely serious situation. Especially that clip of him asking "Do you have the ring", it seemed too intense on the preview.

Re:Gandalf (1)

jammer 4 (34274) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728317)

I think you'll be suprised at his character in the movie. He's not nearly as intense as in that snipit in the preview.

Awesome. (1)

xfs (473411) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728256)

I saw it this morning at 12:01am at a very nice theatre. Didn't hear any of the music problems you mentioned, but that could just be that I was totally entranced by the visuals ;) The fight scenes were well done, the battlescenes breathtaking... I only noticed one or two obvious cg scenes, but they were still fairly well-done.

Out of 10 stars, I'd rate it about a 9.5 :)

Good job Peter Jackson =]

Re:Awesome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728290)

obvious cg scenes

Like the scene where the nazgul leans over the tree trunk under which the hobbits are hiding? I thought the cg didn't work at all.

I saw it this morning (2)

banuaba (308937) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728257)

And I've got to grudgingly agree. The thing just kicked my ass and took it home in a box. In a very good way. I mean, I went to the showing expecting to hate Elijah Woods because of what a whiny little bitch he is, but his character got right in tune with the Hobbitt idea that I had cooked up in my brain after about the tenth reading of the trilogy.

I've already got tickets to see it again tonight. woo!

Saw it last night too (-1, Flamebait)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728259)

Save your money. The acting was mediocre and the sound was shitty. The effects were about the only saving grace for this flick, but it wasn't anywhere near the quality of Monsters Inc. or even Shrek. The story was pretty lame, as well. I guess everyone's memory has been fuzzied enough that this kind of non-story has become a classic.

Bottom line: If you liked Final Fantasy, you'll like this dreck. All flash, no substance. Wait for Blackhawk Down.

Dancin Santa

Re:Saw it last night too (1, Troll)

gergi (220700) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728330)

Final Fantasy had no plot
LOTR (the books) has quite probably one of the `deepest` plots ever in a book.
If they managed to strip all the plot from the movie, I doubt it would be getting all the rave reviews.

Re:Saw it last night too (0, Flamebait)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728358)

As I said, I think your memory's fuzzy. But then, I've never been that big a fan of fantasy. But even disregarding that, where was the fun? The whole thing was too dark, too long, and the only interesting things were the audience members who were freezing their collective asses off waiting for the doors to open because they thought dressing up as hobbits and elves would be a good idea. Harumph.

Personally, I'm waiting to see Ali.

Dancin Santa

Re:Saw it last night too (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728379)

Gee, I thought we didn't see trolls until the second book.

this? (1, Troll)

ravrazor (69324) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728262)

This counts as a review?
No kidding it was spoiler-free; it was content-free as well...
There's a somewhat less mediocre review on kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] . In the comments, there's also links to way more in-depth reviews.
I saw it last night, read a bunch of reviews this morning to see what everyone else was saying and the best review I read is on IMDB [imdb.com] .

What about Glorfindel (1)

BCGlorfindel (256775) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728269)

-Potential Spoiler Warning-
Is anyone else out there dissapointed to see Glorfindel's role of chasing the riders into the river being replaced by Liv Tyler? I know, I'm a bit biased myself, but it just seemed to make more sense to send Glorfindel out to meet them than Arwen.

Re:What about Glorfindel (1)

Foochar (129133) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728354)

I have to agree with you, but they are trying to play up thelove angle between Arwen and Aragorn, and to do that they need Arwen to get some more screen time.

I usually just wait... (-1, Offtopic)

mrroot (543673) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728270)

...until the porno version of a movie comes out.

My woes with United Artists (0, Interesting)

fjordboy (169716) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728271)

I bought tickets online for a United Artists theatre...I will never do it again, here is why (an email I sent to a friend about the problem):

About two weeks ago I called the UA to see if they were going to be doing
any advance ticket sales for FoTR...they told me that they weren't, all
advance ticket sales would have to be done over the internet. So, I went
to a webpage, and using matt's credit card, bought 4 tickets. Then, early
last week, I went down to the mall to pick up the tickets. (trip 1) They
said that I could not have the tickets unless I had both the credit card
and the owner of the credit card present (which is ridiculous, because I
already bought the credit cards...they should require ID...but not this
other crap since they don't even mention it on the webpage). I argued
half-heartedly with them for a few minutes, because there wasn't any time
when both matt and I could be there. I finally conceded and went home.

On Sunday, Matt called the UA (he was also disgruntled at the stupid
policy) and explained the situation and asked again if it would be
possible to just let me borrow the credit card and use that to get the
tickets. The woman said that no, it wasn't a problem.
So, today, after school, I headed down to the mall and attempted to get my
tickets (trip 2). They said no...I explained that matt had called and
explained my whole situation. I argued for quite some time about it and
almost ended up shouting. I kept my cool, but I made them mad because I
held up the line and explained in detail how retarded their so-called
policies were and explained that I was going to be late for work and
whatnot. The people in line agreed with me, making them more angry to the
point where they yelled at me and took me aside (no threats for security
yet). I finally left and they told me to come back after 8 when the
manager is there. I explained the time/money problem with driving that
far, but they obviously didn't care. I left, and came to work and explained it to matt. So, we are going in AGAIN momentarily. This is a
freaking pain. I am not leaving the UA till they give me my tickets for

Worst part about this....they DO sell advance tickets! Bill bought his by
just stopping by. I have been lied to too many times! I am pretty pissed
about the whole thing.

After all of this, I went again, and was able to get my tickets and they gave me 4 free passes for anytime this month....but, it doesn't nearly make up for the waste of time/money and gas to make all the trips to the mall. I also don't really care about movie tickets...this is the only movie I really want to see...and if I watch it again, it will be in a DIFFERENT THEATER!!!

I still can't wait till I see it tonight though.

Relevant Link: PeterSwift.org/page.cgi?page=lotr [peterswift.org]

Re:My woes with United Artists (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728378)

Nothing personal, but you would think after the first time that you would have just brought your friend who owned the credit card along with the card.

I don't believe that ticket sellers have a very high paid/and or rewarding career and therefor probably don't care about your situation very much(how ever frustrating it might be!) You had the right idea by making a stink about it and at least got something for your time.

I would have made them call the manager then and there for clarification.

Re:My woes with United Artists (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728382)

hey, you know matt too? he was sucking me off a couple nights ago and i beat his ass rosy red after. matt's a pure-d cock whore.

i dunno bill, but i've heard that he's into watersports. i wouldn't mind wetting his face down with my piss some time, just let me know when.

My entire company is going (2)

Quizme2000 (323961) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728285)

My boss is treating everyone in company (about 200 people) to a showing at 2pm. My god he even reserved the tickets. I mean my boss is a hugh LOTR fan, and to allow about 600 hours of work to be skipped and foot the bill for the ticket. I guess I'll have to give him a real christmas present this year!

Re:My entire company is going (1)

pipeb0mb (60758) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728348)

My guess is that we will see your company on fuckedcompany pretty soon...

Horror'fied (1, Insightful)

jammer 4 (34274) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728286)

First, let me say I agree totally that this was a GREAT movie. I loved it. I was slightly disappointed though with how often Peter Jackson decided to delve into his roots as a horror movie maker and "scare" us. It just seemed that sometimes the fright and gore was put there just to be shocking and not really move the story.

The main reason I guess this bothered me is that I think some people will be turned off by the movie becuase of the gore and won't be able to see the incredible story that they brought to life (and they did an EXCELLENT job at bringing it to life). For example, I don't think my kids will be seeing this till their older and I know my wife won't get into it as much because of the gore...

Um, okay. (4, Interesting)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728289)

I got two things out of this review:

1) CmdrTaco likes his job.
2) CmdrTaco liked the movie.

Which is great (I'm glad you liked it.) But this review doesn't tell me anything about why I would like the movie, or even the #1 reason to see this movie according to CmdrTaco. It doesn't even go into detail of why CmdrTaco liked the characters, or which one was his favorite and why.

"I liked the movie and you should see it" is certainly passable for an elementary school show-and-tell, but for a popular geek website geared toward college students and adults, this doesn't cut it. Most of us have read the books, so even a little "This scene was like the book and that rocked" teaser would be helpful. At least give us one good reason to hand $8.75/person over to the movie theater!


Re:Um, okay. (0)

ellem (147712) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728332)

You know when you click Read More... [slashdot.org] there's a whole bunch of words which answer that which you seek.

The One Ring? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728294)

Hmm....anyone seem to remember a Webring of Webrings?

"One ring to connect to then all, and in the Ethernet bind them..."

*wince* [Ducks myriad of popcorn and Glossettes from the back of the back of the theatre... [lordoftherings.net]

Yeesh. Sorry 'bout that...

What the hell, it's only Karma....

Galadriel? (1)

svara (467664) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728302)

I saw the trailer of the fellowship of the ring, and was surprised to see Galadriel appeared in it - doesn't she appear in the second book ("the two towers", iirc) for the first time?

Re:Galadriel? (0, Troll)

fjordboy (169716) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728325)

NO! Insolent FOOL!!!! Galadriel is DEFINITELY in the first book! Think elves in the forest??? Ring a bell? The mirror? the elven ring? FOOL! You don't DESERVE to watch the movie. :) jk...but it is in the first book and you should be ashamed. hehe.

The previous comment was not meant to be inflammatory or insulting. Get over it.

Re:Galadriel? (1)

jammer 4 (34274) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728341)

Nope. She's in Fellowship of the Ring too.

What are the chances (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728309)

that cmdrtaco saw this with a women next to him? I bet he went to see it all alone.

Re:What are the chances (-1)

core10k (196263) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728363)

I dunno, but chances are pretty good that it wasn't the lovely, formerly pregnant, and divorced ex-prostitute Kathryn Thurber.

Damn this review sucks (0, Troll)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728315)

Damn this review sucks! I can't believe how foolish the writer is! What does he know about movies!...

eh? um...

So this isn't Jon Katz?

*walking away* You mean I wasted my witty Slashdot banter for nothing?

Had to live up the legacy (1)

hrbrmstr (324215) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728324)

Jackson had no option. It had to be spectacular.

I'm T-3.25 hours from taking my daughter and 9 of her closest high school friends to the opening for her birthday.

Her cake will have LOTR mini-action figures.

Her presents are all (mostly) themed to LOTR.

She's getting the BBC recordings for Christmas.

She fell in love with "There And Back Again" when she was small. She became enthralled with LOTR when in high school; and she has lived in middle earth since she read the Silmarillion.

For my daughter's sake (and for mine! *:^) I hope he really did measure up as well as our benevolent Cmdr said (I have little doubt that it trulyh will be spectacular).

Ans as for those who remark about spoilers: yes, the story is old and known, but the unknowns are what Jackson & co. modified/whacked -- no T.B., Arewen is a jock, and tons of other small things that will hopefully be overshadowed by a remarkable performance by a very decent cast. I just hope I survive the gaggle of teenagers.

"For the Shire!"

Trailer (2, Funny)

DEATH AND HATRED (158846) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728326)

The icing on the cake? The Star Wars EPII trailer!

"Best book ever written"? (0, Troll)

easter1916 (452058) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728328)

You must be joking. Ever heard of "War and Peace"? The Bible, the Torah, the Koran? "The Fall", by Camus? I think you need to broaden your perspective.

Re:"Best book ever written"? (2)

ellem (147712) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728365)

Alice In Wonderland?
The Phantom Tollbooth?

I'm goin to see it... (0)

FeanorOfTheNoldo (544860) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728331)

In about an hour I'm heading to the theatre to see it. To me the most important thing is that it outdoes Harry Potter, to show all those 6 year olds that there are better books out there.

A little extra filler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2728357)

I think they could have cut out about an hour of the movie if they just didnt show so many scenes of them walking. There had to be about 50 big shots of the group walking through fields, forests, pastures, snow, mountains, rivers, and whatever else. They add up.

How many times... (2, Funny)

doorbot.com (184378) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728360)

...do we need someone Taco to mention he has Final Fantasy X?

At least I have my copy of FFX (from this article)
then play more FFX (slashdot://01/12/19/1356248 [slashdot.org] )

That's two within 6 hours.

I wonder if you can still beat the game by simply repeatedly pressing the circle button. Call me jaded but the over-hyped FF7 was not that great; maybe I'm just not blinded by all the hype each time an FFn game is released.

Only.. (1)

_marshall (71584) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728371)

God damn. The hype is warranted. The wait was worth it. But 12 months for the next one? At least I have my copy of FFX to keep me occupied during maybe 40 hours of the next 8,760 or so

Actually.. if you sleep 8 hours a night.. (365 * 8 = 2920) around 5,840 hours to go

But who's counting?

not me =)

My only problem with LOTR (0, Flamebait)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728373)

It has no plot.

Think about it. The main characters go

  • From one place to another
  • Run into all kinds of problems getting there
  • Have some sort of battle
Wash, rinse, repeat.

I certainly hope that Jackson was intelligent enough to add more of a plot. For instance, why not add in a few love triangles? Or, for that matter, why not get rid of the silly hobbits and focus on the exciting parts -- the wizards and the elves?

Virtually anothing would help the story anyway.

Some nits (4, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728374)

I saw it almost by accident last night (12:01 showing in Revere, MA). I've got some nits to pick, but was floored overall by the quality of this rendition. I want to make it clear that the small concerns I have below should be the level of critisism that EVERY movie can aspire to, this is not meant to diminish the film.
  1. I understand that a lot had to be cut for time, and to add some hollywood moments here and there, but why remove the repair of Aragorne's sword? It would seem to be critical later on.
  2. Jackson's take on what happens to the wearer when the ring is on is... a little out of place with what Bilbo goes through in The Hobbit
  3. Some of the special effects for the hobbits were inconsistant. I couldn't figure out if they were supposed to be 3 feet tall or 5 (though this faded as I got more into the movie and stopped paying attention to the details of FX)
  4. Gollum's part has been re-worked quite a bit. In place, we're given a visual omen of doom (the creation of the Uruk-Hai). I'm not sure I like that trade-off, though it does make for a more traditional Hollywood action feel, and bad-guy training montages never get old ;-).
  5. Everyone does a great job, but I really felt that Elrond was a little wooden compared to the rest of the cast. In just about any other film his performance would have simply been unremarkable, but the level of acting was so damn good, here....
Now for just a few things that I think were brilliant:
  1. The eye. 'Nuff said.
  2. I thought that taking Tom Bombadil out of the beginning would break the pacing. Boy was I wrong! It's important in the book because we're being taken on a slow, guided tour of Frodo's education about the world. Tom is a gentle introduction. The movie simply ups the pace, and that works fine.
  3. Someone give Ian McKellan more money... NOW!
  4. The mines were perfectly done. I think that was probably the biggest challenge, visually, in the movie, and it was brilliant.
Thanks, Peter. Oh, and about making us wait a year... YOU BASTARD! ;-)

Nitpick: Gandalf Humour (2, Redundant)

handorf (29768) | more than 13 years ago | (#2728387)

OK, I loved the movie. Very nice. They cut the right parts and I have no major bitches about the changes... save one:

Was anyone else pissed off when Gandalf was made to look like a bit of a tottering old fool? In general, for the first 20-30 minutes, but specifically hitting his head on the DOOR? I mean JINKIES! He's a bloody WIZARD, one of the most powerful beings in middle earth. I don't recall him hitting his head on a bloody DOOR in the book!

OK, end rant. Good movie. Go see it if you haven't.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?