🎦 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring full movie HD download (Peter Jackson) - Drama, Action, Adventure, Fantasy. 🎬
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Year:
2001
Country:
USA, New Zealand
Genre:
Drama, Action, Adventure, Fantasy
IMDB rating:
8.8
Director:
Peter Jackson
Alan Howard as The Ring
Noel Appleby as Everard Proudfoot
Sean Astin as Sam
Sala Baker as Sauron
Sean Bean as Boromir
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel
Orlando Bloom as Legolas
Billy Boyd as Pippin
Marton Csokas as Celeborn
Megan Edwards as Mrs. Proudfoot
Michael Elsworth as Gondorian Archivist
Mark Ferguson as Gil-Galad
Ian Holm as Bilbo
Christopher Lee as Saruman
Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins
Storyline: 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!
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x1080 px 3790 Mb h264 2320 Kbps mkv Download
DVD-rip 480x234 px 792 Mb mpeg4 504 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
Oh... the brilliance that is Peter
The more and more one thinks of it, the more one reads Tolkien and appreciates it, the more and more brilliant this movie becomes. Unlike Harry Potter, whose scenes were completely stripped from the book and had no imagination of its own (not to mention details that were changed for no good reason), this work not only has a soul of its own, but manages to keep with Tolkien's original work... I love this film! Tis Brilliance!

A word on Casting: perfect. My only qualm is that Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) was a little iffy. Tolkien makes it a very clear that there is no evil in Galadriel or Lothlorien, but the audience never really gets this as we are all wondering if her skin is going to shed violently to reveal a hideous monster in the service of Sauron. Nothing to depreciate the value that is this film though. The emotional range is perfect, the quirkiness of the hobbits is perfect, the cast of characters is perfect... I LOVE YOU PETER! Now it is up to them not to ruin the next two. As Peter has done so well with the first one, however, I don't see how he or his writing team could. 10/10
2002-07-06
A Masterpiece!
I wasn't going to review this movie. There are hundreds of reviews on it and I frankly wasn't going to waste my time repeating the same words of praise.

When I first learned that they were doing these movies, I thought, "Great! Another series of movies I'll hate, modeled after a trilogy of books that I love." Stephen King's work, being a prime example. I love the literary works, and the movies all just die on the screen; be it big or little. Then I learned that Peter Jackson was directing it and I was even less eager to see the movies. I never liked the Frighteners and Meet the Feebles?! Wow, did that movie stink UP the place!

And then I discovered they had no plans of making the prequel; "The Hobbit," and that was that. I wasn't going to like the movie, and I refused to be excited about it. Any of it. But then, I was GIVEN tickets as an early Yule present and so I begrudgingly attended its premier here in the Smokies. I was very pleasantly surprised. I ended up seeing this movie twice in the theaters, and have since bought the extended edition gift set of this work.

The opening sequence was so well done, that I couldn't find any reason at all to not accept it. They didn't do "The Hobbit," true enough, but they filled in that time and gave the viewers enough of the beginning that I could thoroughly subscribe to the movie.

Many critics have literally bashed Peter Jackson's omission of one of the characters in Frodo's party, but the character was hardly relevant to the plot, the storyline, or the story itself and was best left out. I didn't even miss old Tom "what'shisname," to tell you the truth.

I do have a problem with Aragorn's character's emotionality in the movie. His character in the book was a seasoned Ranger. His emotional instability; ie: his crying openly scene after scene, is completely out of character. It lends to the storyline with Arwen, and furthers the movie along, true enough, and personally, I didn't mind it. It was just out of character. He's rough, he's tough; a seasoned ranger. He shouldn't have been as emotionally portrayed as Jackson did him, although the reasons are clearly due to time constraints. It would have taken forever to develop Aragorn properly, and they frankly did not have enough time, even with the three-plus hours of screen time.

BUT, Jackson's characters were very well developed, the story was very well told. There was a LOT of dialog, but there was a lot of detail that would've been left out; many, many finer details that never would've been able to be expressed without the richness of dialogue and Jackson and his company saw that, thankfully.

All in all, as a Tolkien fan from WAY back, I feel that Peter Jackson did a marvelous job with this, the opening edition of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It rates so far above, "The Godfather" trilogy (to which it has been compared), that there IS no comparison.

The acting is exemplary. There is no stiffness, no badly delivered lines, no hesitation in performance. Sean Astin truly and greatly surprised me with his brilliant performance as SamWise. The scenery and cinematography is brilliant. The sets and scenes are so well done, I only spied a single flaw...and I was looking! There was a car in the background of one shot! But the car will be missing from the DVD release, I'm sure.

The wardrobing and costumes were finely hand-made; treated to look worn and imperfect, as they should and the Shire was so well done, I was as delighted as any child on Yule morning. But the thing which captured me the most and held me spellbound was the casting. They put just the right people into just the right roles. I simply loved the characters.. Each and every one of them felt just like the book (except for the deviation I already mentioned about Aragorn's emotional state).

First we had "The Godfather," then we were given the "Star Wars" trilogy and now, we have the Lord of the Rings to love. I look forward with great anticipation to the rest of this series.

Thank you, Peter Jackson, for giving of yourself to this extent. It is above and beyond all for which I could have hoped.

This first installment rates a full 10/10 from...

the Fiend :.
2003-09-08
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
2001-12-22
Great spectacle, bad script
Tracking 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.
2001-12-22
Epic, sweeping film-making at it's very best
The Fellowship of the Ring

When one begins to write one's sentiments regarding a movie such as Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic Lord of the Rings trilogy, the main problem isn't having difficulty finding things to remark upon - the main problem is knowing where to begin. The Fellowship of the Ring essentially redefined the term "quality", in its extraordinary ability to vastly succeed the already unreasonably high expectations of audiences and die-hard fans of the novels everywhere.

It becomes difficult to avoid bias by painting the film with outlandish and likely unreasonable praises, but I must confess I could go on for literally pages pointing out how blown away I still am by virtually every aspect of this movie, the first, and in my opinion, strongest as a film of the trilogy. So I'll try to keep it concise - Jackson has truly brought the novels to life in a fashion one could never have imaged short of actually seeing it for themselves. The sets and appearance of Middle Earth are among the greatest ever created, an impeccable blend of CGI, constructed sets, and the already breathtaking landscapes of beautiful New Zealand. The beautiful cinematography brings this all to light again, in the best sense of the word - seldom does a movie look so, simply put, beautiful. The costumes and appearances of the various creatures and inhabitants of Middle Earth are once again, mind-blowing - some of the best and most convincing computer generated images are on display in these movies. This is all punctuated by Howard Shore's simply gorgeous and incredibly moving Oscar winning score.

Acting is also simply nothing less than astounding, with every cast member not only seeming torn straight out of the pages of the novels, born to play their role, but also turning out pretty much flawless performances around the board. There are standouts of course, especially Sir Ian McKellan's now career defining turn as the warm yet incredibly wise and powerful wizard Gandalf, Viggo Mortenson's wonderful flawed yet noble hero Aragorn, Sean Bean's excellent and truly touching portrayal of the quintessential flawed male character Boromir, Elijah Wood as the good hearted lead character, the innocent hobbit Frodo Baggins, and Sean Aston as his faithful and loyal companion Samwise, and Christopher Lee as the corrupted and now evil wizard Saruman the White. Then there is of course the absurdly underrated Andy Serkis' mind blowing portrayal of the creature Gollum. Though mainly seen in the next two films, Serkis already manages to make a powerful first impression with his 2 minutes or less of screen time.

Again, it seems entirely fair to say the Lord of the Rings movies are among the greatest movies ever made, for their incredibly detailed attention to the details of Tolkien's novels, and their still surprising ability to exceed expectations in every possible way in film-making and storytelling terms. This is epic storytelling at its best - if you are among the very few who have yet to see these movies, strongly consider doing so - it will be well worth your while.

-10/10
2006-04-03
A sight to behold
Growing up, my dad would always tell me his favorite books were The Lord of the Rings volumes. But I was never interested in fantasies, so I didn't really care. Then I found out that Peter Jackman was making the movies so I told my dad. He became really excited. But still, I didn't care. Until one night in November, when they showed the LOTR special on TV. I was able to catch only the first ten, fifteen minutes and instantly, I wanted to see the movie. I had never read the books. My dad took me and my family to see the movie. I was a bit excited and curious to see how they would do it. Mind you, I knew next to nothing about this story.

I sat through the entire three hours in Middle Earth and fell in love with it. Through parts, I would clutch on my brother's arm, tense and hoping that everyone will make it through a lot of the sticky situations they were in. I fell in love with Legolas and his graceful Elf self. The minute the movie began, I was drawn in. The special effects were terrific. I felt like I was there. I wanted (and still do) to live in Rivendell among the Elves. The backdrops for the movies was fantastic. Sir Ian McKellan's quote about how New Zealand is Middle Earth is so true.

I was very impressed with the casting. I'm a huge movie buff so I have seen plenty of movies and I won't be lying when I say that LOTR has the best casting ever. Every person, the mains and the extras, WAS the character they played. The make-up was incredible. The orcs creeped me out. The Elves entranced me. The Hobbits brought a smile to my face. Elrond, Hugo Weaving, is the perfect Elf King, firm and commanding, yet with love for his people and respect for Frodo. I could go on and on, but I won't.

I loved the fact how PJ was able to make the Hobbits look small in every single scene. I would LOVE to know HOW in the world they did that. I love how the Elves are so graceful and look ethereal.

I know that the movie is three hours long and people balk at that. I took a friend of mine who hasn't seen the movie because it was three hours long. He loved it. He was engrossed and he had never read the book either. This movie is one of the, if not THE, finest piece of work I have seen. I eagerly await "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King". I definitely recommend this movie for everyone to see at least once. I have seen it four times and will see it yet again soon. I can never get bored of this movie. Go. See it.

I leave you with a quote from Gandalf: "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that we are given"
2002-04-13
A Powerful and Moving Movie
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was the most magnificant movie I have ever seen. From the sets to the costumes; from the acting to the directing; this movie has a stunning outcome. The most truly wonderful thing about this movie is the story. J.R.R. Tolkien had such a brilliant mind. His languages and creatures were ingenious. But, Peter Jackson was also brilliant in his glorious attempt to bring the books to life.

First of all, the scenery was amazing. Hobbiton was exactly how I imagined it. Bilbo's hobbit hole at Bag End was quite a site. Moria was as dark and scary yet bold and beautiful as a mind could imagine it to be. Lorien was so incredibly beautiful. The quick glimpse shown of Minas Tirith was enough to tell us that Gondor will be a stunning site. The Great River and Amon Sul were also sights to behold. But the most beautiful thing created on the set was Rivendell. That is the closest thing any mind could compare to paradise. The sculptures and intricate carvings were amazing. The sets alone were a true accomplishment.

The costumes were perfect. Arwen and Galadriel both wore stunning, flowing dresses. Gandalf wouldn't be Gandalf without his tall pointy hat and long staff. The elves magnificant garments and the hobbits adorable apparel only made the movie better.

What pulls any movie together, to make it worth seeing is the acting. Elijah Wood has always shown off his wonderful acting talents and he proved once and for all that he is an amazing actor. Ian Mckellen seemed so wise and magical that if one didn't know better, you would have assumed he was a wizard. Viggo Mortensen was amazing. He turned from a mysterious ranger to a bold King. I know in the next to movies he will continue to amaze us. I wasn't too fond of Arwens increased part but Liv Tyler made it count. Sean Astin was perfect for Samwise Gamgee, the best friend someone could have. Two of my favorite characters of course were Merry and Pippin. Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd made the movie very enjoyable adding some comic relief. The rest of the cast were just as good in their roles. And it doesn't hurt that Orlando Bloom is incredibly attractive.

All in all, everything about this movie helped to make my favorite books a reality. I hope I'll be able to wait for the next two.
2002-06-02
Even a little Tolkien goes a long way
As a die-hard aficionado of the trilogy, I subconsciously geared myself for some disappointments on my way to see this film. Some reviewers evidently feel they're breaking new critical ground in saying that the film was compromised, here, there and everywhere, finally excusing and extolling the film on the ground that what's left is so good, the flaws don't really matter much. Well, I can't help but agree, and even at nearly three hours, Jackson and his crew couldn't help but nip and tuck, and so the fact that much was missing, in terms of plot, character development, etc., is not especially mystifying. No, what I wondered--while I stood in line and bought a ticket for three shows hence--was not, "Gee, did they cut something out?" but, "Hmmm. Almost three hours. I wonder how they managed, with so little time." And they managed just fine, offering concessions and reconciliations equally satisfying, for those who have read the works as well as those who haven't. I do agree that more attention should have been paid to narrative regarding the Council of Elrond--here the plot point reaches a real pitch that was much missed in the film. I don't agree, however, that modern audiences are too cynical to swallow Bombadil. (That's like saying that imagination always needs a reality check.) And I did enjoy the expanded role of Arwen--it fit like a glove, and Tyler's performance, in my opinion, was superb (I had heard rumors that there were some misgivings when she was cast). But in the long run, the source work is so good that there's a heck of lot of choose from. Not only was serious thought given to the adaptation of Tolkien's masterpiece, the team's keen eye was clearly focused on the sensibilities (and intelligence) of the audience. Thus this is among the best three hours in film thus far.
2003-08-17
A Matter of Visions
Roger Ebert only gave this film three stars because he felt it did not meet his personal criteria for what the movie should be like. But that is what Peter Jackson has been embellishing ever since he started on this nearly eight-year odyssey. It is Jackson's view of how HE would want the movie to be made. On that note, this film has been worth the three years I have spent salivating over any and every web site designed to proclaim the greatest film series ever ("Star Wars" has lost its edge, and "The Matrix" has too narrow an appeal). The only reason I found out these movies were being made was because I was curious what Sean Bean had been up to. This was in 1998, and the wait was well worth it. New Zealand was the PERFECT place for filming Middle Earth, and Jackson does a fine job in making sense of the epic novel. The actors were all fine in their roles, although I still long for Sean Connery as Gandalf, even though Sir Ian McKellen did get an Academy Award nomination. Personally, I though the best performances were by Sean Astin and Sean Bean (Have I already shown my bias for the only man who could play Richard Sharpe?) And while the action scenes are quite engaging, the Rivendell scene stands out as my favorite. The first shots capture the mystery and splendor of Middle Earth's most enchanting and enigmatic characters, the Eldar (Elves to you non-readers of the novels). Howard Shore's Oscar-winning score is no better the here, with the ghostly chorus holding their notes as the Hobbits stroll mesmerized through this strange and beautiful land. The imagery is so engaging that the audience cannot help but be swept away as well. This is what movie-making is all about folks, and if you miss this, you've missed a lot.
2002-07-16
The Perfect Movie
It is the perfect Movie. The story, characters, action, and effects are all unmatched by anything that has ever been produced. It is even a better movie than it is book. What the book did for literature, this movie does for cinema. Any movie fan will enjoy this movie, having read the book or not. If you havent seen The Fellowship of the Ring, see it. It will warm your heart, excite your soul, and take you to place you have never been.
2003-08-24
📹 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring full movie HD download 2001 - Alan Howard, Noel Appleby, Sean Astin, Sala Baker, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Marton Csokas, Megan Edwards, Michael Elsworth, Mark Ferguson, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Lawrence Makoare, Elijah Wood - USA, New Zealand. 📀
×