Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com essential video
As the triumphant start of a trilogy, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring leaves you begging for more. By necessity, Peter Jackson's ambitious epic compresses J.R.R. Tolkien's classic The Lord of the Rings, but this robust adaptation maintains reverent allegiance to Tolkien's creation, instantly qualifying as one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. At 178 minutes, it's long enough to establish the myriad inhabitants of Middle-earth, the legendary Rings of Power, and the fellowship of hobbits, elves, dwarves, and humans--led by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the brave hobbit Frodo (Elijah Wood)--who must battle terrifying forces of evil on their perilous journey to destroy the One Ring in the land of Mordor. Superbly paced, the film is both epic and intimate, offering astonishing special effects and production design while emphasizing the emotional intensity of Frodo's adventure. Ending on a perfect note of heroic loyalty and rich anticipation, this wondrous fantasy continues in The Two Towers (2002). --Jeff Shannon Description
Based on J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is an epic adventure of good against evil, the power of friendship and individual courage. The saga centers around an unassuming Hobbit named Frodo Baggins who inherits a Ring that would give a dark and powerful lord the power to enslave the world. With a loyal fellowship of elves, dwarves, men and a wizard, Frodo embarks on a heroic quest to destroy the One Ring and pave the way for the emergence of mankind. |
Customer Reviews
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
 I had to review this movie, Apr 22, 2023
I've read The Hobbit, Lord of The Rings, and I'm half way through the Silmarillion. I suppose you can call me a Tolkien nerd, but I'm a drunken Tolkien nerd, as of right now.
First, I know many people find "The Fellowship" boring. It's hard to believe, but it's true. "The Fellowship" is the few seconds before the fatal storm hits. "The Two Towers" and "The Return of The King" are all about the battles of Middle Earth. They're suspenseful, action-packed, and will get your blood boiling. "The Fellowship" is different, though. This movie shows the peacefulness of Middle Earth with the description of the Hobbits and the Shire before chaos and evil gradually appear. Their is a sense of good that's keeps viewers hopeful for the final battle.
I've seen this movie stoned many times, and i always get a full range of emotions. This movie provides the peacefulness, the fun of partying, the suspense of battle, the dignity of dying for good - the scene where Boromir dies realizing his mistakes and acknowledging Aragorn as hero and king should move every one, and of course, the trippyness of Galadriel's Elven city. This movie has everything and the book is an awesome read, too.
Second, a reviewer said it's a good thing Tom Bambodil was left out of the movie. Ha, I laugh at that statement. If you think Galadriel is powerful, Bambodil is 100 times stronger and 1000 times more psychadelic. He's an entity that runs around, sings, and no matter what evil lurks, he is still in the best of moods. Unlike every other character besides Shelobe, he is not at all tempted by the Ring. In the book, after he saves the four heroic hobbits from being suffocated by a tree, he asks Frodo for the Ring, puts it on, takes it off with ease, and laughs at its power. He is more powerful the Sauron. Those who haven't read the book may ask why didn't he take the Ring in his home that's a forest just outside of the Shire, just west of Brandybuck territory. The answer is even if he took the Ring, the armies of Mordor would have surrounded him and eventually would defeat him. It was discussed in the Council of Elrond, briefly. It would have been one hell of a fight, though, and he wasn't the chosen one to destroy it in Mordor.
So, who is Tom Bambodil. I might have the answer. The Silmarillion explains the creator of Middle Earth is Eru. He created the Iluvatar who gradually created better music and eventaully sounded as one together. Seven of the Ilvatar went to Middle Earth only to find complete darkeness. In the darkness, they each created what was to become Middle Earth. Pretty soon, they created servants, demi-gods, more powerful than the Elves, but some of their powers the Elves had, making them stronger than Men. I believe Tom Bambodil is one of the servants of these gods just like Sauron is the servant of Melkor, a creation of Eru, who betrays everyone out of hatred and envy. His servants are the Bal-rogs, Sauron being the most powerful.
Why couldn't Jackson just include Bambodil? He's a hard character to picture because he's nothing like that of any other creature, but he would have added so much to the movie. Jackson leaves ALOT out of the movies. For example, when Bilbo leaves Frodo the Ring, Gandolf tells him to keep it secret. In the movie, he goes to Mordor, researches the history of the Ring, and then to Zauramon to speak of the Ring. In this time, you might have figured a week passed. In the book, 30 years pass. Gandalf also joined with Aragorn to trail Smeagal who might lead them to answers, but Jackson has no conception of time or the importance of certain events that he completely ignores. There's at least 100 hundred of events, important and not so important that happens in the books that Jackson seemed to have given no thought to. It's a shame, but the movies are still good. Just read the books, too.
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
Couldn't be better...All three, Apr 19, 2023
I think that Peter Jackson deserves all the cudo's he can garner for these films. Casting was amazing, every character completely believable and perfect for the part. The scenery was absolutely beautiful and perfectly filmed. I was amazed at Jackson's succesful attempt to stay true to the original story. True some prime characters were left out and I did miss the return to the Shire and finding men had taken over. But for the conventions of movie making some things must fall by the wayside, and I think Jackson did a supurb job weeding out what little he did.
All three of these films are high on my list of "watch again".
Can't give them a high enough rating.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
TO TO GOOD, Apr 15, 2023
THIS WAS THE BEST MOVIE THAT I HAVE SEEN.
BEST PART
THE FORMING OF THE FELLOSHIP
WORST PART
THER I'SNT ANY!
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
 Definitely The best of the Three, Apr 15, 2023
This is the best of three of the three, in my opinion. It has great action, and it followed the book closely; so we know that it has a good story. Here is my one problem with it. There was too much focus on the battles and the power of the dark lord. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH MAGIC. Read the books, and you will know what I'm talking about. When you read the books, you look forward to the fantasy magic feeling. THis movie makes the battles the climax of the movie. That's why I thought the beginning of the movie was the best. It had more of the magical feeling, but then there goes the banging drums and violins and hack n slash battle. That was not what the books were about.
Now, I don't want to complain too much because Peter Jackson still did a great job, and did a LOT of hard work on these movies. There good. But I definitely don't think that they were like the books. The books are better and always will be. Read them and watch this movie.
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful:
TOO LONG!!, Apr 11, 2023
But it is AMAZING. Th ewhole trilogy is very well crafted by Peter Jackson. "The fellowship of the ring" kicks off the trilogy. This movie introduces people rather than doing anyting else. I mean, don't get me wrong, this movie is still good, but people got bored due to too much talking. But, still I really liked this movie. Plus with the extended edition, you will find out more stuff about the movie with the extra 30 minutes. This is a really good film, and you should buy it.
|
Cart | 
Based on 3517 reviews.