User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1463 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. RobertoL.
    Mar 16, 2002
    0
    What is the hoopla about this movie? To even mention it as the Best Picture of the Year is blasphemy. Same scene is repeated over and over and there isn't one shred of character development. Simply terrible overrated hyped movie.
  2. JanetS.
    Jun 14, 2002
    1
    What is all the hoopla about this movie. Simply terrible without any character development at all. If I saw one more fight scene with overwhelming odds I think I would be sick. What was a car doing in the background? Awful!
  3. Nicenin
    Feb 14, 2002
    3
    Looks fantastic but sorely lacking in magic and narrative coherence.
  4. BobB.
    Feb 19, 2002
    1
    Weak on every level. No character development at all. Just three hours of cgi and dull dialogue. I'll pass on the sequel.
  5. AppleH.
    Apr 19, 2002
    0
    An absolute horrible movie devoid of any character development. Pure garbage!
  6. Jul 8, 2014
    4
    סרט ממש משעמם, הדמות היחידה שמעניינת הכל הטרילוגיה הזו לא בדיוק נמצאת שם, ואין שום רגע אחד מרגש או מותח, אתם לא תתחברו לדמויות כל כך, אין רגע שתזכרו מהסרט עד שתרדמו
  7. RobM.
    Jan 3, 2002
    3
    Much, too much helicopter shots...too much close ups of the ring! Music reminded me of scooby-doo cartoons...it never stopped! Moved waaay too slow for 3 hour movie! ...what the hell is the movie about? Am I the only one that didn't get it!???
  8. Kim
    Sep 2, 2002
    3
    Let me just put it this way...I walked into the movie half an hour late and it was STILL too long!
  9. SeanB.
    Apr 20, 2002
    3
    Yeah, it was fun to watch at times, but this movie was totally devoid of any sort of excitement or parity. Every "bad guy" that the group encountered on the way was essentially the same, and after a while, I really stopped caring about what was going on. Waaaaaaaaay overrated.
  10. Calavera
    Sep 4, 2002
    3
    A nerdy movie for nerdy people. What's going on? Suddenly, the movie industry and the pc game industry have been plauged with D and D sh*t. I mean come on, this is probably one of the worst films ever made. Yes, the acting and cinematography are excellent, but the premise is geared for an audience that once ran around outside and pretended to cast spells on each other! A wonderful A nerdy movie for nerdy people. What's going on? Suddenly, the movie industry and the pc game industry have been plauged with D and D sh*t. I mean come on, this is probably one of the worst films ever made. Yes, the acting and cinematography are excellent, but the premise is geared for an audience that once ran around outside and pretended to cast spells on each other! A wonderful dialouge, for a silly idea. The action scenes were a total bore. The characters were sickening- as in I couldn't stand listening to they're annoying voices, or look at these stupid characters. Hollywood's going downhill- well this is proof...especially if people are treating it like the be-all end all of films ...sigh...revenge of the nerds? Expand
  11. JeepyW
    Dec 21, 2001
    3
    New Zealand tourist video meets Meatloaf album cover. Stunning fight scenes, but treacly character development and sodden pacing. At least a half hour of the film's runtime must be spent watching Elijah Wood gape wide-eyed at something.
  12. RobertH.
    Jan 13, 2002
    3
    I fail to see what all the hoopla is about? Perhaps I am missing something, but I felt nothing for the characters as they were not developed. The movie was too long and dragged in certain parts. If you like fights against unbelievable odds you are in luck. It was the same action scene repeated three times over and over and without any ending even though it is predictable. I'll pass I fail to see what all the hoopla is about? Perhaps I am missing something, but I felt nothing for the characters as they were not developed. The movie was too long and dragged in certain parts. If you like fights against unbelievable odds you are in luck. It was the same action scene repeated three times over and over and without any ending even though it is predictable. I'll pass on the next two sequels. Expand
  13. Carol-AnnC.
    Feb 23, 2002
    0
    Absolutely one of the most overrated pieces of drek that I have ever seen. I couldn't care less about the characters as they are devoid of any feeling or chemistry. Lord, please help us if this is what Hollywood calls Oscar material!
  14. D.T.
    Mar 17, 2002
    2
    Ick! They should atl east give the ending a little bit of 'ending'. It's extremely long-winded. But I do have to give it credit for its amazing effects (and that's the only best bit about the movie).
  15. BarbaraD.
    Jun 1, 2002
    0
    Absolutely terrible film with no character development at all. Probably will score big with pre-teens but insults the intelligence of adults. Same scene repeated over and over. Childrens story and childish film.
  16. Ned
    Nov 7, 2002
    1
    Like a round of torture at the hands of a narcoleptic Torquemada, this movie not only broke my will to live, but did so at far greater length than was necessary. The cinematography was good (hence the 1) and the acting was mediocre. The plot, however, equal parts immature fantasy and mawkish tripe, was terrible. The story was like something a six-year-old would tell his babysitter. The Like a round of torture at the hands of a narcoleptic Torquemada, this movie not only broke my will to live, but did so at far greater length than was necessary. The cinematography was good (hence the 1) and the acting was mediocre. The plot, however, equal parts immature fantasy and mawkish tripe, was terrible. The story was like something a six-year-old would tell his babysitter. The characters were dull, leaving me at best utterly uninterested in what would happen to them, or more often hoping that they would get killed off just to momentarily alleviate my boredom. The battle scenes were both ridiculous and tedious. I haven't read the book, and now realize that I'm a better, more cultured man for it. This Tolkien rubbish is prime evidence of the dumbing-down of Western culture. The movie is an abomination and an abortion! If you want solid, deliberate character development, watch a Werner Herzog film. If you're a masochist, watch this cinematic atrocity. Expand
  17. MoviemanMaxdawg
    Jan 26, 2004
    0
    I must say that I watch films all the darn time, and I know a good one when I see it. This was not one. The movie will delight two groups. Those who are either so amazed with the wonderful eye candy that the film is full of that they don't care that the story is unengaging and simplistically boring, or those who have read the book and are so happy to see their fictional little I must say that I watch films all the darn time, and I know a good one when I see it. This was not one. The movie will delight two groups. Those who are either so amazed with the wonderful eye candy that the film is full of that they don't care that the story is unengaging and simplistically boring, or those who have read the book and are so happy to see their fictional little friends played out on the screen. I don't fit into these groups. Let me just say that a properly used battle would be something more like what you saw in The Last Samurai where the battles were there as an element of the plot, not a relief from the lack of it. Expand
  18. JaredH.
    Apr 1, 2002
    0
    There was such a diverse opinion in either you loved or hated it, that I decided to see it for myself. Without question a terribly overrated flick that only children would like.
  19. MikeF.
    Jul 25, 2006
    0
    Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was the impression I had that Jackson thought he was creating a work of art. What a joke. In fact, I wish it were a joke -- a bunch of one-dimensional Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was the impression I had that Jackson thought he was creating a work of art. What a joke. In fact, I wish it were a joke -- a bunch of one-dimensional characters speaking a sort of bad-Shakespeare dialect. Good lord. Collapse
  20. NiggA
    Oct 23, 2007
    0
    It sucked my left nut on the right side bullshit it sucked both the balls freestyle that shit and eat it.
  21. KenC
    Apr 25, 2010
    0
    It's generally accepted that when adapting a book you invariably end up removing scenes. A filmmaker's responsibility to the source material is to capture the essence of it with some respect. Jackson manages to only capture the surface layer of the story and by adding a good 100 minutes of additional scenes that are not in the book he lets the source down badly. Some argue that It's generally accepted that when adapting a book you invariably end up removing scenes. A filmmaker's responsibility to the source material is to capture the essence of it with some respect. Jackson manages to only capture the surface layer of the story and by adding a good 100 minutes of additional scenes that are not in the book he lets the source down badly. Some argue that it is a "reimagining" and that it was impossible to film otherwise which is nonsense. The added and erroneous scenes could easily have been replaced with some of the key ones that were removed. Tom Bombadil in "Fellowship" for example, and "The Scouring Of The Shire" which was critical to Return Of The King as you see how the members of the fellowship were so changed by their experiences. Replacing such critical scenes with dross shows a complete lack of respect for the source. In the end Jackson's LOTR is all sound and fury signifying nothing more than the filmmakers ego. What an awful waste. Expand
  22. Forweg
    Mar 5, 2004
    0
    Hollywood trash. Please read the books and never watch this garbage. At least they didn't ruin Tom Bombadil's image.
  23. PoopinskiS.
    Aug 7, 2002
    0
    I loved the movie but the dvd is CRAP!!! dont even bother buying it and if you do you might as well burn the second dvd--all it is is ads for their crap merchandise and an ad for the special eddition DVD that provides footage that this one doesnt. WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST PUT IT ALL ON ONE DVD. the IDIOTS!!!!
  24. TonyR.
    Jan 13, 2002
    1
    Wow... This movie was boring. Not since the Bridges of Madison County have I felt the urge to sleep at the theater. The obnoxiously overbearing musical score prevented that. This movie is simply uninteresting. It is no better than professional wrestling... with swords and arrows. The long, slow shots scream for us to adore the characters, not one of whom I cared about. I ceased my court Wow... This movie was boring. Not since the Bridges of Madison County have I felt the urge to sleep at the theater. The obnoxiously overbearing musical score prevented that. This movie is simply uninteresting. It is no better than professional wrestling... with swords and arrows. The long, slow shots scream for us to adore the characters, not one of whom I cared about. I ceased my court at 52 close-ups of characters eyes. (And it was early in the movie.) This movie starts out not so great and goes downhill from there. The only reasons this movie is rated a 1 rather than a 0 are Ian McKellen and Cate Blanchett. They are terrific actors, of course, and do better than any of their comrades in LOTR at giving some genuine feeling to the stale drivil. Expand
  25. Geri
    Dec 30, 2002
    1
    This was one of the most boring unrewarding movies I have ever seen. I still don't get the hype about it?!?!
  26. WillR.
    Jan 4, 2002
    2
    What is all the hoopla about? If you wasted your childhood playing Dungeons & Dragons, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother. The movie does have tremendous special effects and fantastic scenery, some of the best you'll ever see. However, for the most part, this is an incredibly boring film which basically breaks down to a bunch of ho-hum battles with evil creatures What is all the hoopla about? If you wasted your childhood playing Dungeons & Dragons, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother. The movie does have tremendous special effects and fantastic scenery, some of the best you'll ever see. However, for the most part, this is an incredibly boring film which basically breaks down to a bunch of ho-hum battles with evil creatures (typical plot sequence: guy stabs evil creature with sword, followed by guy shoots evil creature with arrow, etc.). The plot is extremely simple and leads absolutely nowhere, the dialogue is complete drivel, and the characters are one dimensional (at best). If the movie was an hour or two long, it might have been tolerable, but at three hours, it's virtually unbearable, unless your idea of a good time is watching paint dry. Expand
  27. Dr.EdB.
    Jun 16, 2002
    2
    With all the controversy surrounding this movie I decided to watch this children's story for myself. As a professor at a large university I was interested to learn the reason for the wide ranging opinions. With apologies to JW I too found this movie very overrated. The cinematography was breathtaking but the character development was poor. Unless one is an avid reader of With all the controversy surrounding this movie I decided to watch this children's story for myself. As a professor at a large university I was interested to learn the reason for the wide ranging opinions. With apologies to JW I too found this movie very overrated. The cinematography was breathtaking but the character development was poor. Unless one is an avid reader of children's books the average theatergoer would have a difficult time as there is very little insight into the characters. That is the flaw in the making of this movie. It does not translate well from the book. JW enjoy the rest of the trilogy as I will read your review. Sorry, I too did not appreciate nor enjoy LOR. Expand
  28. Nicole
    Aug 8, 2002
    1
    To everyone who thought this was a good movie I have to ask ,"What were you thinking!" This was the worst movie i've ever seen. It was way too over hyped. Half way through the movie I was wondering why I hadn't brought more candy. At least that would have gotten me through the agony. I had a better time watching Queen of the Damned. Thank god A Beautiful Mind won. It was so much better.
  29. SeanS.
    Sep 2, 2002
    2
    One of the worst movies I've seen all year. This crap is soooo overrated. I really can't understand how anyone could possibly enjoy this movie. When I was watching it I couldn't wait for it to end.
  30. J
    Dec 12, 2003
    0
    All of these movies are no good at all! It's just one gigantic battle scene, that is boring after about 1 minute. Everything is too weird with all these hobbits and dwarves and wizards and magical people that don't exist. All of this is too fake and I can't believe that so many people love these worthless movies so much. How can you sit through 3 straight hours of junk like that?
  31. AlexM.
    Dec 4, 2004
    4
    Not only was I massively disappointed by this film, but having re-watched it several times in the years since I originally saw it, I have come to believe that it is actually a flat-out bad film. This entire trilogy has, in my opinion, been hideously overblown. This first film is clearly the weakest: a mess of oppressive close-ups, shoddy CGI and ludicrous sequences (like a lame scene in Not only was I massively disappointed by this film, but having re-watched it several times in the years since I originally saw it, I have come to believe that it is actually a flat-out bad film. This entire trilogy has, in my opinion, been hideously overblown. This first film is clearly the weakest: a mess of oppressive close-ups, shoddy CGI and ludicrous sequences (like a lame scene in which Gandalf and Sauron do battle). "The Two Towers" was not much more interesting, but at least the bizarre spectacle of Gollum kept things interesting. "The Return of the King" was the only one of the trilogy that I semi-enjoyed, but even that is a deeply flawed movie. I just don't sense any artistic invention from Peter Jackson. His roots are in schlocky horror films, and I think those roots are quite evident in the way he has interpreted Tolkien's work. I had not read the "Lord of the Rings" books before seeing the films, and afterwards I sought them out so that I could discover whether the books themselves were overrated or whether Jackson had simply blown the adaptation. I found the books to be masterful: captivating, imaginative and with a genuine sense of invention and wonder. It is that sense that is missing from the films...instead, the overall tone of the movies is reverential, hushed, quasi-Shakespearean and, frankly, boring. I agree with what another poster said: the first three "Star Wars" films are brilliant and far superior to these movies, and despite the current hype, I predict that in 30 years when people look back at the "LOTR" films, they will see that they don't stand the test of time. Expand
  32. PeterB.
    Dec 30, 2002
    2
    There was almost nothing interesting enough in this movie to hold my attention for 3 hours. I was anxcious for it to end. And then the last nail to the koffin. No ending! 3 hours and no story, no ending. There is nothing else left.
  33. HugoF.
    Feb 13, 2002
    3
    Intellectually empty eye candy. Pretty, but so is Carmen Electra.
  34. GabbiR.
    Feb 19, 2003
    1
    Here's a summary of the whole movie: They walk, they fight, they walk, they fight, they walk, they fight, they walk, they fight, they walk it ends. Some movie. What really gets me was it was 3 hours long. This movie has torture written all over it.
  35. YoonMinC.
    Sep 26, 2003
    4
    Maybe the book is a literary classic but I suspect this movie left out everything except the violence. Worse, everything here is a rudimentary sword/sorcery cliche, the special effects are murky, and the characters only frown, growl, or sweat. The pointyeared archer is handsome and dashing, and there are a couple of impressive images, but overall you're better off playing with your Maybe the book is a literary classic but I suspect this movie left out everything except the violence. Worse, everything here is a rudimentary sword/sorcery cliche, the special effects are murky, and the characters only frown, growl, or sweat. The pointyeared archer is handsome and dashing, and there are a couple of impressive images, but overall you're better off playing with your Playstation instead. Expand
  36. IlzeS.
    Dec 26, 2004
    4
    Not a bad movie, but theres no plot and storyline is really bad!
Metascore
92

Universal acclaim - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 34
  2. Negative: 0 out of 34
  1. 100
    I see it as nearly perfect: It's one of the best fantasy pictures ever made.
  2. An extraordinary work, grandly conceived, brilliantly executed and wildly entertaining. It's a hobbit's dream, a wizard's delight. And, of course, it's only the beginning.
  3. 70
    Above all, Jackson evokes an almost palpable sense of the will to power trapped within the ring. Without this evocation of the ring's insidious ability to sniff out the potential for corruption and capitalize on it, the entire enterprise would be precious drivel.