The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 2001 123movies

Watch: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 2001 123movies, Full Movie Online – An ancient Ring thought lost for centuries has been found, and through a strange twist of 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..
Plot: Young hobbit Frodo Baggins, after inheriting a mysterious ring from his uncle Bilbo, must leave his home in order to keep it from falling into the hands of its evil creator. Along the way, a fellowship is formed to protect the ringbearer and make sure that the ring arrives at its final destination: Mt. Doom, the only place where it can be destroyed.
Smart Tags: #ring #quest #hobbit #middle_earth #epic #elf #orc #based_on_novel #saving_the_world #wizard #lord_of_the_rings #riddle #hidden_door #warrior #friendship #sword_fight #voice_over_narration #magic #forced_perspective #blockbuster #trilogy

Find Alternative – The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 2001, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	8.8/10 Votes: 1,866,719
	91% | RottenTomatoes
	92/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 21843 Popularity: 85.627 | TMDB

Reviews:

Lost count how many times I’ve seen the “The Fellowship of the Ring” but still fantastic after all these years, epic on every level and just all around entertaining, the 3.5 running time just flies by. Will be watching “The Two Towers” either tonight or tomorrow followed by “The Return of the King”. **4.75/5**

Brooking no argument, history should quickly regard Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship Of The Ring as the first instalment of the best fantasy epic in motion picture history. This statement is worthy of investigation for several reasons.

Fellowship is indeed merely an opening salvo, and even after three hours in the dark you will likely exit the cinema ravenous with anticipation for the further two parts of the trilogy. Fellowship is also unabashedly rooted in the fantasy genre. Not to be confused with the techno-cool of good science fiction, nor even the cutesy charm of family fare like Harry Potter, the territory of Tolkien is clearly marked by goo and goblins and gobbledegook. Persons with an aversion to lines such as, “To the bridge of Khazad-dûm!” are as well to stay within the Shire-like comforts of home (their loss).

With those caveats in place, it bears repeating: fantasy does not come finer. There are electrifying moments — notably the computer-assisted swooping camera through Isengard as it transforms into a factory for evil — when Jackson’s flight of fancy approaches the sublime as the romantic poets would understand it: inspiring awe.

Leaving aside the thorny issue of Tolkien die-hards and their inevitable gripes — “What no Tom Bombadil?” — Jackson’s screenplay (written in collaboration with Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens) is both bolder and more judicious than Steven Kloves’ surprisingly timid retread of Harry Potter. In particular, rescuing the romance of Arwen and Aragorn from the footnotes and the elevation of Saruman to all-action bad guy actually has a corrective influence on Tolkien’s often oblique and female-sparse source material.

There are problems, though. The three-hour running time is high on incident and low on discernible form. After successive detours to Elf habitats Rivendell (the watery home of Elrond) and Lothlórien (the forest home of the Lady Galadriel), the uninitiated might well ask why these crazy Elf kids can’t just live together and spare us all this attenuated dramatic structure.

More importantly, the action clearly climaxes in the desperate flight from the Mines Of Moria, where the largely seamless SFX is showcased in the best possible light — total darkness — but the narrative demands a different, downbeat ending. Indeed, but for some fine emotional playing from Bean, Mortensen, Astin and Wood, the final fight might feel like a particularly brutal game of paintball in Bluebell Wood. But then, the real battles are yet to come…

Verdict – Putting formula blockbusters to shame, Fellowship is impeccably cast and constructed with both care and passion: this is a labour of love that never feels laboured. Emotional range and character depth ultimately take us beyond genre limitations, and it deserves to play as wide as a certain Mr. Potter.

5/5

– Colin Kennedy, Empire Magazine

Greatest `Fantasy’ Book become greatest `Fantasy’ film
I think it is important to remember that Peter Jackson took up this film not in order just to make a film of `The Lord of the Rings’ but because he wanted to make a ‘fantasy just like the `The Lord of the Rings'” as he himself put it. After repeating that phrase on a number of occasions the question popped into his mind: “Well, why not the `The Lord of the Rings’ itself?”. In doing this he, of course, set himself an enormous challenge: he had to make a really good `fantasy’ film, one which would stand on its own and be true to what he had originally wanted to do but he would also, and here the task he had set himself was enormous, be true to the original book and to make a film which the legions of people who have loved this book would feel happy with. In the latter task he was certainly not helped by the author or the book: Tolkein, it would seem, hated cinema. The book itself is `HUGE’: this was not going to be the kind of task that the James Ivory team set themselves, or Scorsese nor the kind of task facing Branagh with Hamlet; nor was it going to be like the puny task that faced Columbus with `Harry Potter’ who had the bigger budget ($130 million for one film as compared with Peter Jackson with $300m for three).

I have just seen the first `volume’ and can say without hesitation that he has succeeded in both his goals. It is not the book but a reading of the book which is inventive and fascinating. It is the kind of experience that makes you want to go back and reread the whole thing in the light of the emphases that Jackson has brought to the story. He focuses on the corrupting influence of the ring and, through this focus, the character of the chief protagonists of the story are revealed. Clearly those most tempted by it are mortal men (Boromir and even, in one moment, Aragorn), those who already have power (Elrond – `The ring cannot stay here’; Galadriel; Gandalf and Saruman), and, of course, those who would not normally desire it but who by accident become ring bearers – Gollum, Bilbo, Frodo. I can see why, in this reading, Jackson decided to leave out the Bombadil episode. Bombadil, like the Balrog, is beyond the ring but the latter is important to the unfolding of the story of the fates of all the characters, Bombadil isn’t.

It is a miracle of this reading of the first volume of the book that one can see where Jackson is going and one can get a feel of how the reading is going to unfold. In a sense, Jackson’s real trial – as far as those who know the books are concerned – will come with the second film in the series. He has lived up to our expectation by creating even bigger ones: how can he handle the story of the chase andrescue of Merry and Pippin, the storming of Isengard etc – stories which don’t really add much to the core theme that is emerging. Or is he now going to add the theme of the great contest of good versus evil to the unfolding reading?

All of this points to the fact that the film, even though it is a feast of special effects, focuses on character. And this also explains why Jackson chose the actors he did for their roles: they are not `big’ names – no `Sean Connery’, no `Alan Rickman’, no `Brad Pitt’, no `Sam Neill’etc. He didn’t want them getting in the way of the story of character. Ian McKellan’s talents, in particular, are used to tell a large proportion of the story: an enormous amount is conveyed simply through his facial expressions and even by the language of his body. The other miracle in all of this is Elijah Wood. Like many others, when I first heard of Jackson’s choice, I groaned: but Wood has been extraordinary. He brings, as one friend said, a strange kind of androgyny to the role and this is just perfect. McKellan has already been knighted: give Wood the Oscar.

And then there is Middle Earth: this is, as someone put it, another character in the story and the New Zealand landscape, digitally enhanced on occasion, lives up to its role too.

Enough. See this film! Greatest film ever made? How can one make a claim like that! Silly really; as silly as claiming that `The Lord of the Rings’ is the greatest book ever written. Can’t one simply love a story, enjoy reading it a number of times amd lose oneself in it. One CAN claim that it is the greatest work in its genre as is the film.

10/10

Excellent
Incredible adaptation of the first book of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. I’m not going to summarize the story–there’s way to much going on. All I’ll say is they took a verry difficult book with a intricate plot and made it an exciting, totally accesible movie. The film moves quickly (with a few slow spots–but that’s to get in the plot) and there’s a lot to take in, but I was never confused. I should mention that I tried twice to read the books but found them too hard.

The film looks magical–Middle Earth looks beautifully real. All the special effects are great (the Ring Wraiths are downright terrifying–as they should be) and the action sequences are among the best I’ve ever seen–fast, long and breathtaking. The film is long (2 hrs, 40 min) but the time flies by. The only problem is that there’s so much plot and action going on that you’re exhausted by the end–but in a good way.

With the exception of Viggo Mortensen (very wooden) all the actors are good–top honors go to Elijah Wood, Dominic Monaghan, Cate Blanchett, Liv Tyler and (especially) Ian McKellan.

But the film is VERY violent (despite the PG-13 rating). It deserves an R–this is NOT one for the kids. Still, it’s the best film of 2001. SEE IT!!!!

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 58 min (178 min), 3 hr 28 min (208 min) (Special DVD Extended Edition), 3 hr 48 min (228 min) (Blu Ray Extended Edition), 2 hr 51 min (171 min) (DVD Widescreen Edition)
Budget 93000000
Revenue 871368364
Status Released
Rated PG-13
Genre Action, Adventure, Drama
Director Peter Jackson
Writer J.R.R. Tolkien, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens
Actors Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom
Country New Zealand, United States
Awards Won 4 Oscars. 121 wins & 126 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix DTS, SDDS
Aspect Ratio 2.39 : 1
Camera Arricam ST, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Arriflex 35 IIC, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Arriflex 35 III, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Arriflex 435, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Arriflex 535, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Arriflex 535B, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Mitchell Cameras, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Moviecam Compact, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses, Moviecam SL, Zeiss Ultra Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
Laboratory DeLuxe, Hollywood (CA), USA (prints), Film Unit, Avalon, New Zealand (colour) (dailies)
Film Length 4,700 m (Italy), 4,888 m (9 reels)
Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision 200T 5274, Vision 500T 5279, Eastman EXR 200T 5293, SFX 200T)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) (some scenes), Super 35 (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic) (Fuji F-CP 3519D)