The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8046.31 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x288 | 1916.9 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x238 | 911.14 MiB | divx | |
|
480x202 | 928.49 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x128 | 383.72 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The Legend Comes to Life
One Ring To Rule Them All.
You will find adventure, or adventure will find you.[teaser trailer]
One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
Its power corrupts all who desire it. Only one has the will to resist it. A Fellowship of nine must destroy it.[full-length trailer]
Fate Has Chosen Him. A Fellowship Will Protect Him. Evil Will Hunt Them.
Middle Earth comes alive...
Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that we are given
Power can be held in the smallest of things...
An ancient Ring thought lost for centuries has been found, and through a strange twist in fate has been given to a small Hobbit named Frodo. When Gandalf discovers the Ring is in fact the One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron, Frodo must make an epic quest to the Cracks of Doom in order to destroy it! However he does not go alone. He is joined by Gandalf, Legolas the elf, Gimli the Dwarf, Aragorn, Boromir and his three Hobbit friends Merry, Pippin and Samwise. Through mountains, snow, darkness, forests, rivers and plains, facing evil and danger at every corner the Fellowship of the Ring must go. Their quest to destroy the One Ring is the only hope for the end of the Dark Lords reign!
| Sala Baker | Sauron |
| Noel Appleby | Everard Proudfoot |
| Ian Holm | Bilbo Baggins |
| Christopher Lee | Saruman |
| Sean Astin | Sam Gamgee |
| Ian McKellen | Gandalf |
| Orlando Bloom | Legolas Greenleaf |
| Sean Bean | Boromir |
| Billy Boyd | Pippin |
| Cate Blanchett | Galadriel |
| Elijah Wood | Frodo Baggins |
| Marton Csokas | Celeborn |
| Megan Edwards | Mrs. Proudfoot |
| Michael Elsworth | Gondorian Archivist |
| Mark Ferguson | Gil-Galad |
| Lawrence Makoare | Lurtz |
| Peter Jackson |
8.80 out of 10 (371416 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A pooch of the highest (lowest?) order.
posted on 30 Aug 2009Personally I found this movie to be a major disappointment. Having read the book(s) several times since the mid-sixties, I have a thorough knowledge of the plot and a profound fondness for the texture of the story. I resisted unreasonable expectations going in, and was prepared for what I thought would be, at worst, a visual treat and some interpretative entertainment.What I saw, however, was dour, over-pensive characters with little or no inherent charm, Pippin and Merry tossed in merely for bumbling comic relief, unconnected and confusing plot development (had I not been so familiar with the story I would have been completely unaware of what was going on in the story), and alterations to the storyline that were insipid and done merely to provide larger roles for the actors (the Arwen/Liv Tyler synthetic heroics pop immediately to mind). As if the baffling plot development isn't bad enough, the role of Saruman in the story is greatly misrepresented, texture building subplot roles such as Bombadill and Butterbur were simply removed, and what were the Sacksville Bagginses (so critical to the book plot in the end) doing in this movie if they only got one (rather bewildering) reference. I could go on for hours about missing characterizations but suffice to say the difference between book and movie in this arena is horrific, and in point of fact, fatal.Certainly the 'graphics' were nice, but so what. Amazing graphic hacking and hewing of monsters in a mountainous setting is a dime a dozen these days. Big deal.And, Hugo Weaving as Elrond was ridiculous. All due respects to Mr. Weaving, but all I could hear Elrond saying in any of his scenes was 'Well, Mr. Anderson, one of these lives has a future and the other does not.' Respects to his powerful portrayal as agent Smith. The charm and depth of Tolkien's story is completely missing in this film. Frodo, for example, whines and whimpers through every scene, acting continually pained, as if he had a thorn in his foot the entire time. He has no real inner character or strength, except in a few unfounded grandiose speeches during which he seemingly pulls some nerve out of thin air and proclaims himself equal to whatever task is currently at hand, after first whimpering in the background for a good deal of time with sad puppy-dog eyes and furrowed brow.I would guess that the direction of this film was based on the assumption that members of the audience had read the book(s) and were familiar with the story line (how else could anyone follow the jerky plot presentation). If that is indeed the case, why were there so many drastic deviations from the original story line? Did screenwriter Frances Walsh or director Peter Jackson actually believes themselves better at telling this tale than Tolkien? The difference in medium is simply not a good enough explanation for me, and I rank this convoluted, expensive quagmire of one-dimensional characters and uninspired storytelling right up there with other titanic screen dogs, like Armageddon and Independence Day.Painfully, there are 2 more Lord of the Rings episodes to come.
lots of uuuhs and ahhs
posted on 30 Aug 2009i started to watch this one four times. and i always stopped after half an hour. i did not read the book and the movie to me seems to be all about computer-animated dwarfs chopping each others heads of and old men saying pathetic phrases, like " if you do not feel thy power in you the ring better belongs to someone who is aware of the power you are about to feel in the next episode of star wars and beware of in diana jones four, sure" peter jackson did a great movie called braindead. in the us it is called dead alive or something like that. thats a great one. but beware, its splatter! so i am going to watch lord of... again ad you guys and girls watch braindead To my (friends:the one with the lawnmower). tell me witch one you liked better.
Goes to show that action-adventure movies can have heart and soul
posted on 26 Aug 2009Great performance all around. Beautiful Cinematography, Set Design...top notch technically. The screenplay, considering the massive source material, was streamlined but done so effectively. Sometimes a few lines of dialogue were spoken with the perfect hushed tone but became unintelligible. The Mines of Moria were fantastic. Everything. As some of the reviews have stated, it improved minute by minute. Thrilling.
Despite some shortcomings, a success
posted on 26 Aug 2009Those familiar with Tolkien's book will recognise the enormous challenge which the director and production crew faced in bringing the book to the screen. Overall, I think this challenge was met pretty well.In my view, the film version manages a satisfying portrayal of most of the book's characters, and especially of Gandalf and Frodo. I had some reservations about the portrayal of Merry and Pippin, who come across as buffoons in the film. In the book they are young and brash, but they aren't stupid. It's hard to see the reason for the change, unless it's to get some cheap laughs at their expense. The visual portrayal of places and characters worked successfully, although some of it (Isengard, and the portrayal of the orcs, for example) was a bit over the top for my taste.The director did an excellent job of selecting which parts of the book to include and which to omit. The difficult challenge of conveying the history behind the quest was dealt with in the best way possible, using Isildur's defeat of Sauron as the key historical event.The treatment of many of the battle scenes did not appeal to me. A number of these (such as the one near the end after Boromir tries to take the Ring from Frodo, and the fight with the cave troll in Moria) were changed from the book, often lengthening them or making them more complex for no apparent reason other than to increase the amount of limb-hacking, possibly to appeal more to a juvenile male audience.(SPOILER ALERT)I was disappointed by the treatment of the Council of Elrond, which is the turning point of the Fellowship of the Ring volume. In the book, the decision to send the Ring to the fire is taken after a long debate in which all the participants are involved. In the film, Elrond makes the decision in advance of the Council meeting, and the meeting descends into an unseemly squabble which Frodo resolves by announcing that he will take the Ring. Also, those in the audience who had not read the book must have been mystified by the sudden appearance, with no explanation, of Boromir, Legolas and Gimli. In the book they are introduced at the Council meeting and the reasons for their arrival in Rivendell are properly explained. This is particularly important in the case of Boromir, who comes after a dream in which he is enjoined to `Seek for the Sword that was broken', etc.I found at least one change from the book to be an improvement - the treatment of Arwen. I had wondered before seeing the film what Liv Tyler would have to do, since in the book Arwen is no more than an ornament and marriage fodder for Aragorn. In the film she is given a role of greater action. This changes her character somewhat, but is I think it is an improvement.Overall, despite some shortcomings, most of those who enjoyed Tolkien's book would approve of the way that Peter Jackson's film version has accepted the enormous challenges of bringing this story to the screen, and will look forward to seeing The Two Towers. 7/10.
Inspired Movie Making
posted on 26 Aug 2009I had often wondered why I had never read The Lord of the Rings books. I was always amazed at the enthusiasm, dedication and loyalty of the countless people I know who absolutely adore these tales. I said to myself 'what's all the fuss about? They are only silly childern's books!!Well I could not have been more wrong!! The LOTR is a tremendous story, which totally captivated me for three very short hours! It paints a huge canvas of a totally alien world filled with Hobbits, Elves and giants! An alien world but at the same time a world which has many similarities to our own. There is Good V Evil, Friend V Foe, Love V Hate. And at the centre of all is the most unlikely of hero's, a four foot tall Hobbit!J.R.R. Tolkien was inspired to write a beautiful tale of friendship and loyalty in a harsh world of betrayal, death and damnation! With the odds firmly stacked against them, this fellowship of unlikely companions (four Hobbits, two warrior humans. a dwarf, an elf, and an old Wizard called Gandalf) battle the Evil Saruman and his forces of darkness.It is a tribute to this fabulous story that I have not yet mentioned the special effects, which are truly outstanding! Director Peter Jackson has made a wonderful film co-ordinating what was a massive project! Three films made back to back!!!The cast we are all excellent, especially Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins (Our Hobbit hero). I particularily liked Sean Bean as Boromir and Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey!There is not much left to say only **DO NOT MISS THIS FILM** It is the movie experience of the new millennium!! Roll on next Christmas and The Two towers!!One Ring to conquer them all, has been rewritten to one film to conquer them all!!
Great spectacle, bad script
posted on 24 Aug 2009Tracking all the making of information leading up to the film, it seemed like Jackson was doing a great job. The scenery, props, casting, makeup, and effects all seemed beautifully authentic. And in action, they deliver. But the script (it's always a danger when you see three writers and one of them is the director) spoils the magic.It's more than making Arwen's role more significant (and a completely different character) in a blatant attempt to beef up the roles for women. I didn't like that, but women's roles are admittedly sadly lacking in the original story. It's that Jackson puts his clumsy fingerprints all over Tolkien's themes and tells the story from the perspective of Men. Apparently, modern moviegoers need to identify with their race. (Side note: all the critics who say how the movie has preserved the magic of the books probably haven't read them since college.)The relationship between the four hobbits isn't set up at all in the movie; aside from Frodo the other three hobbits seem thrown into the quest by chance. Rather than being a reluctant, conflicted hero, Frodo is praised by all the other characters but actually does little but squeal, get stabbed, and look on the elves in wonder. Saruman (a lesser character in the fiction who only appears the first book through Gandalf's recollection) takes up far too much time in the movie. And by the end we've seen Sauron's eye so much I wonder there's anything to reveal of the dark lord in the second and third movies. I expected changes, but I fail to see the rationale for many of Jackson's edits--they don't make the story better or the action flow more smoothly.The Lord of the Rings is an elegiac tale of the passing of magic from the world and of the heroic struggles of those races passing from the world to preserve goodness. In Jackson's eyes, history is told from the perspective of the victors, the Men. Hobbits, who drive the action in the books, are along for the ride while Aragorn, Boromir, et al are the real protagonists in the movie.I give Jackson full credit for taking on a task of this scale and achieving an epic feel. If only he'd started with a script as good as his scenery.
Get off it already!
posted on 24 Aug 2009Ok, I seriously think everyone should just drop the issue about whether or not this film is worthy of it's #1 rating. Your giving way too much credit to that method of grading movies. It's a popularity pole, nothing more, nothing less! Did I enjoy myself at this movie more than The Godfather or Shawshank redemption? YES! Did I like this movie more than The Godfather or Shawshank Redemption? YES! Do I think it merits an Academy Award for best picture? Well I haven't seen many other of the movies that are being acclaimed for the year 2001 so I'm not going to comment on that. I would say however that if LOTR was going up against either of mentioned movies in their respective years it probably wouldn't win an Academy Award.As for a Peoples Choice Award that would be another story!The fact this movie was 3 hours long didn't bother me in the least. I haven't read the books but saw the 1978 animated movie. That particular film ended with the battle at Helms Deep. I was fully expecting this movie to end at the same place and was very disappointed when it did end expecting at least another hours worth of entertainment. To listen to some of you people complain about the length you'd think there's never before been a movie that was three hours long! Did not of you ever see Gandhi, The Green Mile, or for that matter any film Oliver Stone ever made? And of course let's not forget about Battlefield Earth (no wait that movie only seemed like three hours).I have yet to hear one argument against this movie that's in any way credible. If your going to nitpick you should do a better job of excluding the spite and genre contempt from your words and find issues that really make sense. Otherwise it's hard to take most of you too seriously!
Absolutely fantastic, the greatest adventure I've ever been on!
posted on 24 Aug 2009In only my dreams could I have seen such a wonderful place. This film brought me to tears on how good it really was. I honestly expected the best and received better. Only Jackson could of brought this film to life the way he did. Congratulations!
Awesome!
posted on 24 Aug 2009I decided to rent the movie one day after reading the book which was pretty good but a little boring. Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, I was hooked. My eyes would never be able to be pryed off the screen. After a short while, I found myself in love with Legolas Greenleaf, wonderfully portrayed by Orlando Bloom. Every line he spoke was with such depth and sincerity, and his eyes...don't even get me started on those expressive eyes, showing every different kind of mood set by the Legolas character. Frodo, Pippin, Sam, Gollum, Gandalf, Merry, Boromir, Arwen, Aragorn, Eowen...the whole fellowship, made awesome contributions. If you haven't yet seen this movie but seem curious, check it out!!! It's one of those movies that should not be left behind.
Surprise, surprise
posted on 22 Aug 2009Just came back from a second viewing of this great film, and was yet again totally taken in by it. Just like the first time I was surprised by how they had captured Middle-earth on-screen, how the actors played their part with their heart on their sleeve, how utterly and totally convincing it all was.Although there are already quite a few raving reviews from official film critics, plus a probable 100.000+ fan reviews to be found on the net, I would still like to add my two cents, if only to let Peter Jackson and all of his troupe know that I think they did an admirable job in bringing Tolkiens´world and characters to life.I am not going into detail - lots of other people have done that, but I will make mention of some things that I liked, and that I haven´t read too much about yet. Minor spoilers ahead for people that have not seen the movie.If there is one thing I have read nothing or nearly nothing about, it is Gollums eyes. Although Gollum does not play a big role in this first movie, he can be seen two or three times, and one of those times you see his eyes... Incredible eyes, very human, although much bigger and somehow filled with a sadness of long ages, and with a certain malice. Enough to whet your appetite for parts two and three, where Gollum gets to play one of the leading roles. And this guy is completely CGI, too! I read in a review about an ´alarming Jar Jar Binks likeness´... The brainless turd who wrote that review probably never read the books. Much unlike the intelligence-of-the-average-movie-goer-insulting Jar Jar Binks, Gollum was already a character in the books, who was not thrown in to get some toys sold! Nor do I expect him to speak in a ´funny´ semi-Jamaican accent.Second thing I noticed, is the raw emotion that is up there. Characters are allowed to cry, to feel about other characters, to hug, to scream of pain or loss... It is a very emotional film. Anyone stating that we have cardboard characters here, not only completely missed out on the emotion that is on display, they also missed out on a more important pont: this film is not part one, basically it is the first three hours of a nine-hour film. Only when the three films can be seen as one (in a LONG run) we can judge the character development. As the next film will have several small groups to follow on their journeys through Middle-earth, I am sure we will see their characters develop. For the moment, we have to hold back on that particular feature.Well, that is what I had to say about it.I bow deep and low to you, Mr. Jackson, for pulling it off. For actually committing six years of your life (or is it even more) to this project and coming up with a first installment that is nothing short of brilliant. For giving us all the pleasure to see a well-known story come to life in a different, yet faithful way. Of course, should you ever come across these humble lines, the gratitude goes out to everyone involved, from the director to the best boys´ gaffer. Perhaps the biggest compliment is that my wife, who before yesterday had only heard of the books because I read them, now wants to read the books, wants to see the film a second time in the theater (would be the third time for me - no matter!) and can hardly wait for The Two Towers. But neither can I.
Thumbs up
posted on 22 Aug 2009Far, far better than I had dared to expect. It is one of those rare films where blockbuster action and a fine artistic vision blend seamlessly. You could not mistake this for the work of any other director than Peter Jackson - his visual style is all over the film. Excellent art direction (even if the Elven dwellings seem like cheap Charles Rennie Mackintosh knock-offs) and wonderful cinematography. Good acting (although I had a few problems with Sean Astin and Cate Blanchett) and the script is good. I've read the books and I was pleasantly surprised to see how the scriptwriters had managed to recover the _story_ underneath Tolkiens stylistic mannerisms.In short: I liked it. A lot.
Great Fantasy Book Becomes One Of The Greatest Movies Ever Made
posted on 22 Aug 2009When Peter Jackson took on this amazing trilogy written by J.R.R Tolkien he was taking one of the biggest dares in cinematic history. The Lord of the Rings trilogy has gathered countless fans over the world. The books are captivating masterpieces that delve deep into our imaginations. To think that it would be transferred to the big screen. But Peter Jackson had that certain touch, he turned a great book into a film that will be treasured as one of the greatest films to ever have been made.For those who haven't read the books (I urge you to) the plot focuses on a ring. A ring made for evil. This ring can turn the bearer invisible at will. By luck, this ring lands into the hands of Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit from The Shire. He passes it down to his nephew Frodo Baggins. When Gandalf finds out about this he immediately sends Frodo on a quest to destroy The One Ring. Because if it falls into the wrong hands it could mean an end the Middle Earth. Along with Samwise Gamgee they set off on an epic adventure.This movie is one-of-a-kind. An adaption has never been this good. Everything about this movie is captivating and just so brilliant. I have read the Fellowship just once but I was just so pleased with this movie. The way Peter Jackson has gone from paper-to-film is very inspiring. The look of Middle Earth is extremely beautiful. The beautiful Hobbiton and dread-filled Mordor are just perfect.The roles are perfectly suited. Elijah Wood is great as Frodo, Sean Astin as Samwise was a perfect choice and Ian McKellen as Gandalf was an extremely smart choice. This movie is just perfect and if you haven't seen it I urge now. GO SEE IT!! 5/5.
Boo.
posted on 20 Aug 2009what a boring movie.i was warned it's not for people who haven't read the books -- and have no interest ever doing so. i should have heeded those warnings.i was grateful enough to run into Elijah Wood not once, but twice, a few months before this unfortunate movie (video game?) came out. we chatted both times, and he was such a cool guy and i was so charmed by him that when I realized he was starring in this, i rushed to see it.i wish i could see him again to ask him what he thought of the script.the good: Elijah Wood (vastly underrated as an actor; he carried this), Ian McKellan (i have long suspected and am now convinced that he can play any role, in any movie), production value, and Gollum (just as i imagined, so creepy!)the bad: i could go on for a while. i'm still p***ed they didnt do the hobbit in live-action. its the only one i read, and i thought (im clueless) thats what this was. aside from that personal problem...where was the plot? i mean god. how many times did we have to watch the same scene...fix, six? gandalf waxing poetic about the evil (insert place) of so-so inhabited by the terrible (insert obstacle0 so-and-so. its like watching dungeons and dragons, except they never die and have to start over.and come on, the "special" effects. was it supposed to look like a computer drawing? that really ruined it, unless thats what they were going for...? plus, i dont get what the fairies had to do with anything (although liv tyler is really cute), and i really wish the movie had an actual ending.and i know its a fantasy, but how can they defeat all those things over and over again where thousands before them have failed? and if the ring is actually that powerful, why do i care about them anyway? if theyre invincible, it works, but theres no story. and if theyre not...then they shoulda died. but, whatever.i guess you either have to be in the mood, or be a lord of the rings fanatic. my aunt, one such fanatic, keeps telling me that the 2nd book was the best, so im hoping it will live up. it was nice seeing my acquaintance-in-passing elijah onscreen. but id rather have been playing zelda or even mario brothers. i hope the next one has an actual story. i'm certainly not paying 12 dollars for a IMAX ticket again though.
As good as it gets.
posted on 18 Aug 2009Given that this has as much a history in fantasy circles and Stars Wars has in Sci Fi circles the anticipation of the movie has been growing steadily for ages.Simply put you could not have done it better, this rates as the best fantasy film of all time and along with Harry Potter represents a great boost for the genre that films like Dungeons and Dragons have gone a long way to dent.The scenery is stunning, the Characters are spot on, the story lovingly recreated. It answered all my expectations and then some. My only gripe is that as films like these get longer could we not have an intermission like the days of old?
General reply to lovers and haters of the film
posted on 18 Aug 2009I have read The Lord of the Rings, and I adore the book. I think it is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. I find it a masterpiece of literature, and I am not alone. Millions of people all over the world treasure this book. I am simply astounded every time I consider what Tolkien did. He created cultures and languages in a time that feels not fictional, but thousands of years before us. He also made a villain that is inanimate. Though Sauron and Saruman desire the ring, without it they cannot complete their conquest of Middle Earth. And the darkest enemy the fellowship faces is not Saruman, Sauron, or the Ring; it is their own frailties and fears. Tolkien also writes into his story the fact that we can never know how things might turn out. We never know what consequences our actions may have, at least not fully. Case in point: Gandalf says he thinks Gollum still has a part to play, for good or ill. Which of course he does. For those of you who have read the books, you know what I am talking about. For those who don't, you'll see...And thankfully, so far the movies are following the story.One of the users said that he did not want to read the book after seeing the movie. He said that a movie should make you want to read the book. I don't agree. I suppose that since I am avid reader, I think the book should stand on its own merit and any movie made from it should reflect the book. I think people should read the book instead of relying on the movie. And if the movie is bad, that just means the filmmakers did not stay true to the book.
Terrible
posted on 18 Aug 2009Perhaps the most over-rated 'I must like it because people say i have to like it' films of all time. Badly directed (too many close ups, you can see that they use children for the midgets in the film on some of the distance shots), badly acted, slow moving boredom.Sorry people but i didnt like it and i shall not be wasting 3 hours of my life which i will not get back watching the second one:/
One of the three best movies ever!
posted on 18 Aug 2009a pinnacle of cinema, absolute genius from all sides. the best acting i've seen since...ever, the best special effects, best props, CGI, costumes, lighting, script, source material, let's just say, fellowship of the ring is the best of the best, second only to its sequels. Peter Jackson is truly a creative genius, a king among men. Howard Shore has created the most beautiful score i've ever heard on screen, and all the actors played their roles so well. especially Ian McKellen as Gandalf. McKellen is the ultimate in theatre acting, and plays a unique gandalf that no other actor could ever dream of portraying. Truly there is no one who can hold a candle to Sir Ian McKellen, a creative genius just as Peter Jacksn is. Fellowship of the Ring is amazing beyond all reckoning...
One of the Worst Movies of the Year
posted on 16 Aug 2009Horrible acting, a melodramatic plot, and at times hilarious special effects. And all that for 3 damn hours. The only good things about the movie was the unintentional humour and the scenery. Although at times even the scenery was horrible, as evidenced by the gigantic statues frozen in a Hitler salute. I could go on about the terribly hilarious moments in the movie, but that might spoil it for those who will end up thinking that those scenes were actually good.
What you should know going in......
posted on 16 Aug 2009You get the wrong idea about this movie when you see the previews. They don't give much of an indication that this movie is REALLY SCARY. There are all sorts of creepy monsters and super-tense scary scenes. The nail-biting tension of these scenes is really what makes them scary, as well as the fact that it's hard to know exactly what's going on. And plus, this movie is not all it's cracked up to be. I don't know why it's even on the top 250 list, let alone NUMBER ONE???????? How could this possibly be better than all the classics listed on the top 250?Aside from this, there is alot of beautiful scenery and amazing special effects. It reminds me of the computer games "Myst" and "Riven". The acting is very good in this movie, especially by Ian McKellen.The imagery in this film is that of the subconscious. This film is such true subconscious stuff that the movie literally talks with your mind's eye, and vice versa. It controls your feelings. It's very consuming. Peter Jackson did a great job at this. And for the scary scenes, it's amazing how fast and tense they were able to make it.However, I must say this to Mr. Jackson: Shame on you for doing this movie in Super 35.MY GRADE: 7/10
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
- 237
- 238
- 239
Phenomenal
posted on 30 Aug 2009Saw it at an early press screening this week. (I'm a member of the print media). This is the best adaptation of any book to the big screen that I've ever seen, not only in the fantasy genre, but in any area. If you like spectacular settings, fast-moving and all-out battles, and classic good vs. evil, this is your film. For Tolkien fans, the wait is well worth it. Director Peter Jackson is to be commended for his outstanding work in sticking with the story and spirit of the books. It's the best movie of the year, and could indeed earn the title of masterpiece.