The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical and Extended Limited Edition) |...

The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical and Extended Limited Edition) | Sean Astin, Sean Bean | A magnificent achievement!.

DVDs:

The Lord of the Ri...

	The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring (Theatrical and Extended Limited Edition) Sean Astin, Sean Bean New Line Home Video, 2006 average customer review:based on 3597 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

The Award-winning $1 billion dollar franchise is revisited with three new 2-disc limited editions. Each DVD features the theatrical and extended versions of the film and a new documentary. Filmmaker Costa Botes, who was personally selected by Peter Jackson, created three ground-breaking documentaries using rare behind-the-scenes footage.

DVD Features:
Documentaries:Never-before-seen behind-the-scenes documentary by Costa Botes, the filmmaker director Peter Jackson personally hired (85 minutes)
Other:Part I - 106 minutes (Extended); 93 minutes (Theatrical) Part II - 122 minutes (Extended); 86 minutes (Theatrical)

for more information click here

The movie is true to the story and the sets are amazing ...

This trilogy is fantastic. Jackson captured the awe, the wonder, and the homesickness for the Shire in this movie. The deviations from the books are very understandable. I have small quibbles, but the on the whole this is a fantastic retelling of the story. The most amazing accomplishment to me is the sets. Hobbiton, Rivendell, Mordor and Lothlorien are amazing. They are brilliantly realized on the screen.

I watched the extended version and the inclusions were very good. There was more singing, more background in Hobbiton, and it just gave the movie more of the feel of the books. The extra half an hour or so was well worth the time.

My only complaint is the conversations are hard to understand. Sometimes the background music is so loud it overrides it. Sometimes they talk in whispers. I might have to play with the settings, but we had it set to movie and we didn't have problems with other movies.

In summary, this DVD is well worth owning. Even if you saw it several times in the theaters and can quote all the characters, the extended scenes make it well worth the price.

for more information click here

A magnificent achievement!.

Here Peter Jackson directed a movie based a world-wide bestseller by J.R.R Tolkien which was thought to be unimaginable at the time. The theatrical version was fantastic... until the special extended version which is 30 minutes longer came out displayed in a four disc layout. But the changes sometimes whole scenes, sometimes merely a few seconds make for a richer film. There's more character development, and more background into what is to come in the two subsequent films, such as Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship and Aragorn's burden of lineage. And some additions make more sense to the plot, or are merely worth seeing, such as the longer opening focusing on Hobbiton which shows more of the spirit of J.R.R. Tolkien. Extremely useful are the chapter menus that indicate which scenes are new or extended.

The bonus features (on two complete DVDs) are far superior to the largely promotional materials included on the theatrical release, delving into such matters as script development, casting, and visual effects. The only drawback is that the film is now spread over two discs which can display a minor inconvenience.

All in all the extended version is far more superior than the original theatrical release. The story and script is far more explained and detailed relating more to the book.

for more information click here

The Ring Goes South . . .

I'm an avid reader. I've read a variety of books, from epic fantasy to non-fiction, from contemporary fiction to classic literature. Don't flame me because of this, but I haven't read the first two books of "The Lord of the Rings". I've read SOME parts of "Fellowship" and "Towers," and I DID read "The Return of the King," but I'm mildly disappointed at myself for not reading the books before the movies came out. But anyway, I can see the differences betwen this film and the book: Tom Bombadil is absent in the film, the Moria sequence is much longer in the book, all of the events in Isengard are told during the council of Elrond in the book, etc.

I haven't seen this film for a very long time (probably back in 2005 was the last time I saw "Fellowship"). After that, I read "The Wheel of Time," "The Farsser Trilogy," "Don Quixote," "The Kalevala," "The Ramayana," and other books that contained lots of fantasy. I've also read contemporary works like "House of Sand and Fog," "The Feast of Love," "The Ha-Ha," etc. Anyway, after reading all these books, I had a bit less admiration for "The Lord of the Rings," mainly because it was starting to become cliqued (I know Tolkien put some originality in his own elves and dwarves, but I've seen too many elves and dwarves elsewhere). And plus, I got into Wagner's "Ring Cycle," and being the avid "Ring" listener that I am, the 15-hour opera replaced "Lord of the Rings" as my new favorite epic. But then, just last night, I watched the movie again. And now, I can see it as a classic again. It has given me even more inspiration to become a novelist in the fantasy genre.

* * * *

I saw the Extended Version after the original Theatrical Version. Many of the new scenes felt like they were "just inserted in." But later on, I can no longer see the weird cuts because the last time I saw the Theatrical Version was back in 2003. Until then, the Extended Version was the one I saw from now on. I got to understand Tolkien's universe much more.

Peter Jackson has done an extraordinary job with Tolkien's "Fellowship". He's brought so much famous material into this 200-minute film. The way he moved from the Fleeing from the Ringwraiths to the Journey to Mordor is just outstanding. And he chose the right actors and crew for this grand-scale epic.

Peter Jackson may not have been completely been faithful to the book, but you have to understand that in order to put it in "movie" format, some things had to be changed. Some sequences have been omitted for the sake of time, and it may or may not be a good thing to other people. Personally, it works well as a movie, but if I'm in the modd for the complete epic, I'll read the books anytime.

For the actors, I was a bit skeptical about Elijah Wood playing Frodo Baggins, and I stil find him to be a bit annoying. But he still makes a believeable Frodo, and I don't know anyone ese who can play the part. Ian McKellen is the perfect Gandalf: he has the voice and the appearance down flawlessly (kudos to the makeup and costume department). Christopher Lee is a brilliant Saruman, a character everyone loves to hate. Sean Austin, Billy Boyd, and Dominic Monaghan are excellent hobbits (although I find Austin's mediocre accent a bit distracting). Kate Blanchett will always be the definitive Galadriel. Gimli is right: she's absolutely gorgeous. Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn gives one hell of a kick-@$$ performance: his swordfighting is amazing. And so does Orlando Bloom (as Legolas) with his bow and arrows. Fangirls have absolutely glomped the elf, and I don't really mind. I never expected John Rhys-Davies to play Gimli, but he is great for the role. Too many closeups of Liv Tyler's face (in all three movies) brings down one grade for Arwen: it's a B. Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm, and Sean Bean as Elrond, Bilbo Baggins, and Boromir absolutely steal the show sometimes; great actors, all of them are.

The script is at times melodramatic, but that's what to be expected in epic fantasy (kudos to Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson). The camerawork, costume/set designs, and CGI effects are incredible. The beautiful scenery makes me want to go out and visit not just New Zealand, but the many national parks here in the United States.

Finally, we come to the music. To me, it's almost similar to that of Wagner's "Ring Cycle," but not completely. I'm not sure if Howard Shore got most of his inspiration from Wagner, but he sure did a damn good job with the score. The musical themes range from objects ("The One Ring") to characters ("Arwen"), to locations ("Lothlorien"), to motives ("Orc Industry"). I like him better than John Williams at the moment.

Overall, reading books both inside and outside the fantasy genre has affected my overall perception of LOTR. I can see the formulaic plot that's found in other fantasy novels (some authors put something new and others don't). I can see the two-dimensional characters ("The Wheel of Time" has plenty of that). I can see the basic plot of good versus evil (I should read "A Song of Ice and Fire" soon). But I still like LOTR, because it's the first popular epic fantasy that every one has grown up on ("The Odyssey" and "The Kalevala" don't seemto count just yet). And I'll still keep watching it.

A-

for more information click here

Birthday Surprise!

Order said it would arrive within 6 days after shipment, but it arrived earlier, on my birthday!

Good condition, could tell some clean up had been done. Overall, a very good experience.

Had it's moments...

Why 3 stars? Pretty much everyone else seems to adore this film. And why not. It's visually beautiful, the cinematography is lush and necessarily pastoral, the music does a very good job of enabling the visual aspects of the film. So why 3 stars?

1) Peter Jackson is obviously a giant kid with toys. He's got a wonderful imagination and assembled a nearly great team of pre-pro, production, and post pro artists. But the man cannot direct to save his life. Everything is pretty much either a distance or 'long' shot in which effects and the input of at least tens if not hundreds of people went into them; these are indeed amazing and beautiful. But then, good old PJ's gotta ram the camera up the nose of all the actors in close-up after close-up as if this will convey to the audience a sense of character dynamic and develop a relationship with that character through close-up. Where are the medium shots, the shots that tie in those long shots and those close-ups? I see very few of them and by not having them, the film is not done the justice that it should have had.

2) Editing. Now, the editing does get decidely better in film's 2 and 3, but Fellowship is pretty much one big editing mess. The pacing in many of the scenes feels rushed and unbalanced. Examples: 1) The opening scene with Frodo and Gandalf; there is no linger, no friendly invite in the way that the editor(s) chose the shots. This perhaps can be partly due to the effects and the separation/distance effects in order to make Elijah Woods appear much smaller than McKellan. 2) The dark rider entering the Shire. Horse and rider enters frame and we cut 1 to 2 seconds shy of where the natural beat feels it should be. Of course, the music keeps up so it has the appearance of being natural, but the intuitive flow is just not there. 3) The dark riders being swept down by the river when Arwen summons the water. Again, the climax of the moment is abruptly taken away from us. After all, these Ringwraiths have been the main antagonists for the better part of 1.5 hours. Even just another second or two does the trick. This 'minimalist' editing goes on and on throughout the film and as a cummulative effect it starts to takes its toll on the picture. This opinion of the editing of FOTR is not just my own (as an editor) but is held by many editors that I know as pretty close to the same view.

3) Frodo is a wimp. I said it, Frodo pusses out, whines, and does a great deal too much crying. Where's my tough little hero who shines on the ringwraiths at the Ford? Where's the stalwart heart who confronts the ringwraiths at the lookout point? Not here.

4) The prologue. This feels like some sort of a big studio exec decision, 'we need some action cause we don't have any for almost 2 hours', or 'the story is so complex lets give it all away to our stupid audience so they don't really have to think at all or remember much.' However, it seems that PJ was the advocate of this prologue. Placing this prologue or much of that information in its rightful place at the Council of Elrond makes for a much more visual sequence.

5) Isildur is a doosh, and he is one right from the get-go. I had heard of the sequence they were going to shoot in which the Elf King (can't remember his name) and the Human King, Elendil were going to charge the near impervious Sauron, basically sacrificing themselves and that Isildur was going to attack Sauron. When Isildur slices off Sauron's arm the power shatters the kingly sword. There was a little more to the sequence but I got goosebumps from reading it, and then we're given a watered down, Isildur's a doosh/Sauron's a turd sequence.

6) Frodo dies forever. Considering that in the next film, The Two Towers, the writers can't think of another way to get Aragorn to see the 10,000 Uruk'hai except by 'fake' killing him off so he becomes separated from the rest of the group, and since Gandalf is also going to be 'fake' killed off towards the final third of this film, Frodo's 'fake' death, in super slow-mo is just too much 'fake' death for me to take. Make the moment stand out, sure, but don't make it last a "life-age."

7) Thousands of little Moria orcs have our brave fellowship surrounded, imminent death, and then the Balrog saves the day scattering a sure skewering crowd of would-be Moria orcs. Stupid, lame... how about make the entire sequence a chase in which our brave fellows are battling to the last, appearing to hold out against all odds in ever confined quarters as they start to descend narrow stairs, and THEN the Balrog makes his first appearance and crushes all hope of which even Gandalf is terrified of.

8) PJ can't direct action (at least in this film). When I first saw the cave-troll battle sequence online way back in mid-2001 I was somewhat excited. However, with it came the caveat that PJ better school the audience on how to direct action, each sequence getting its own flavour. And this 'hand-held' shaky-cam stuff, while having its obvious place in the frenetic close-quarter combat of the tomb sequence, doesn't really need to be used any more than that as there are countless other techniques to direct and edit said action. Nope. We get pretty much the same shaky-cam stuff for every action, confrontation sequence. Not as bad as say Bourne Supremacy or Ultimatum, but still lacking in the diversity that the various action sequences potentially calls for.

I could go and on and the films do get better but even with all the fanatic love put into the making of these films and I have no doubt that this is the best rendition of Tolkien's work that we'll ever see, I still feel that this first film only really deserves 3-stars. It should have been better than what was finally shown to us. Other people obviously adore this film and I'm very pleased for them. I just saw too many flaws where there was no need for such. All the pieces are there; at times the editing is flawless, at times the action directing/editing sings perfectly, at times Elijah is everything Frodo reads on the page, at times, at times... so why not all the time?

for more information click here