Discussion » Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Rings

This is a read-only copy. The forum ran on iamcal.com from 2000 until its database was lost in 2016, and this topic was rebuilt from copies saved by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. Some replies may be missing.
Posted by Sul, 16:03, 10th January 2002:
 

Title: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the rings
Rating: 0/5

I was not at all impressed with this film. The scenery was great but I was falling asleep too often to appreciate it. The plot development was poor and moved at a snails pace, even the fight scenes seemed liked they had no effort to them!

This film has to be one of worst things I've been subjected to in a long time!

Let the slating of Sul begin.....
Posted by Sul, 16:17, 10th January 2002:
 
oh and I didnt actually mean to give it a 0 more of a 2 really but my finger must've slipped.
Posted by saima, 23:32, 13th January 2002:
 
I thought the film was fantastic but I've never read the book so I can't compare.

The settings really did it for me, very intricate and beautiful. All the actors did a cracking job too, especially Elijah Woods.
Posted by cal, 08:58, 14th January 2002:
 
great acting, great effects, but where was the story!? they got a ring, then went from one place to the next with predictable fight scenes and a predictable outcome. dullsville.
Posted by Sul, 09:45, 14th January 2002:
 
Thank god someone actually agrees with me, you realise we'll now both be cast into excile and treated like lepers dont you?
Posted by grahamdell, 10:28, 14th January 2002:
 
I thought it sucked too! Hooray, a sanctuary where we can all hideout.
Posted by ell, 11:58, 14th January 2002:
 
Ok, so lacking in story, but the cinematics should have kept you awake! There wasn't a single shot in the whole film that wasn't a masterpiece of directing! The whole thing has been gone over so carefully with a fine-tooth comb.. and of the story, that's what the first book's about, nothing much does happen compared to the others. Wait til the whole trilogy is in context for the story... even tho the first book has LESS story in it (explaination involves minor spoiler, so I won't tell unless asked.),

Now, it's the ENDING to the book that's lacking... I won't spoil anything for anyone, save to say that the climax is over in just a few pages, after all of that. I kept checking back over the parts I'd just read, seeing if there was a page stuck together or something. :(

NB. The DVD is supposed to have 30-40 extra minutes of the film, so make sure you have plenty of food at hand, if you're planning to get it. Myself, I enjoyed the film immensly, and would reccomend it to everyone, if only to have seen 'those effects' on the big screen.

All in all, a far better conversion to screen than Harry Potter (unfortunately- cheesy American-funded piece of shit.)
Posted by Joe, 03:09, 15th January 2002:
 
Living in a city that officially renamed itself Middle Earth for the week of the Australasian premier I am probably somewhat biased towards the film.

I thought it was fantastic. Cal's comments about the story are quite true (except for the dullsville part), but what is the lord of the rings but a whole bunch of sword fights and serious manly discussions. Peter Jackson & co had to shave off quite a few extra adventures (the whole journey to Bree) to keep the film just under three hours.

I also thought the movie clarified many things that Tolkien left quite vague.

Dissappointments for me were seeing Kiwi actors in (relatively) major roles. When Shortland Street's Craig Parker showed up as Haldir there was an audible groan at the Embassy (the one true theatre in which to view the film). I want to see proper actors in Hollywood flicks - not people I went to school with. There will be a similar issue with the next Star Wars film when Temuera Morrison plays the part of Boba Fetts dad.

The scenery was very pretty - I spent most of the second viewing trying to guess where each scene was filmed.

My favourite part was the battle with the cave troll - how many arrows did it take to kill that fucker?
Posted by Sul, 08:38, 15th January 2002:
 
the battle with the troll in Harry Potter was better :-)
Posted by www_tamhb, 12:53, 18th January 2002:
 
it was very good and i liked the specele effects
Posted by Sul, 23:42, 18th January 2002:
 
yes, so did I, I rated it much more than the version I saw!
Posted by chris, 21:03, 27th January 2002:
 
It's just all bloody hype, two good films, based off good books typically over hyped and ruined for me.

The media ruin good films, you go in to see things like Lord of The Rings and expect to come out feelining like you've had a blow job (or an equivalent) and it just comes like any other film.

Nevermind, we got at least another two years of this yet...