User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1462 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. Chris
    Sep 24, 2005
    10
    I love this film. In fact I love all three. I cannot fault them. The backdrops is fantastic, the acting is fantastic and the soundtracks to all the LOTR films is just superb. Its also so nice to sit down and watch a film that does have some meaning and one that doesn't contain foul language these days.
  2. AnsonG.
    Jun 23, 2006
    10
    Wonderful adventure movie. Best ever.
  3. Dec 4, 2013
    10
    To describe this movie as merely epic would be a gross understatement. As epic movies go, it has all the diverse conflicted characters, fighting against insurmountable odds, clash of interests, difficult decisions concerning life and death, matters of the heart and so on.

    The movie starts off with an introduction to the present conflict pervading Middle Earth. Sauron is established as
    To describe this movie as merely epic would be a gross understatement. As epic movies go, it has all the diverse conflicted characters, fighting against insurmountable odds, clash of interests, difficult decisions concerning life and death, matters of the heart and so on.

    The movie starts off with an introduction to the present conflict pervading Middle Earth. Sauron is established as the main villain. Not much is shown about his past. We do not know why these people are fighting against each other. You'll have to read The Hobbit or The Silmarillion to catch up on that. The rest of the first half hour is used to establish the abode of the Hobbits, The Shire.

    Then the pace picks up as the main characters leave and we get to witness the vast abundance of Middle Earth, and its people and races including the Elves, who are the most intriguing of them all.

    Aragorn, also called Strider, is the action go to guy. Far from home and not ever wishing to return, he literally strides into the story and takes command. He is the person most people would form a bond with, I know I did. Then there are others like Legolas, an elf; and the dwarf Gimli. They form the core among the group. And Boromir the son of the steward of Gondor, whose family has taken care of the affairs of the state with the departure of the last of the kings. Gandalf the grey, a member of the order of wizards, is the old guy counselling and protecting our protagonist, Frodo Baggins, on his quest to destroy the ring that can wield a power greater than any other.

    Their journey is perilous, the odds pitted against them deadly. The Ringwraiths, servants of the Dark Lord Sauron, seek to return the ring of power to their master and cannot rest until they have done their duty. The Orcs or Goblins, a dark twisted species, are the footsoldiers of the evil side. As if this was not enough, the ring has the power to influence those around it toward claiming it for themselves and fight to the death for it. As Frodo's uncle Bilbo was the previous owner of the ring, it is felt that he would be better able to withstand its effects.

    Peter Jackson has the talent to capture the sense of the epic with the camera angles he employs. Always in fear of failure to grasp the location of the visited places and their relativity to each other, I was amazed how easily everything became clear. The special effects were revolutionary for its time. The art department did a commendable job with the sets, costumes and make-up. The locations used for shooting were serene and exquisite, making me want to visit New Zealand where it was shot. The score did a wonderful job keeping you on the edge of your seat and never letting you really relax and lose the sense of urgency, though the greater credit for that feat has to go to the editor. I also watched the extended version of the film, so I can understand the decision to cut out several scenes of relative unimportance to the plot, but I found their presence to be complementary and fulfilling.

    Fantasy movies are always hard to do right. People watching them are willing to be swept off their feet, yet slight inconsistencies could be disastrous. Jackson commits none of those mistakes. Fellowship is my favourite from the trilogy, as it focussed more on the characters. The major battles are part of the sequels, which some might find more alluring. This is a fantasy movie which was done perfectly, in my opinion, and the others in the genre should be held against it for comparison.

    Extended edition felt more satisfying. Lady Galadriel had more scenes with the main characters, so did Aragorn and Boromir talking and arguing with each other. A bit of Galadriel's palace was shown. In the final skirmish with the Orcs, Boromir's and Aragorn's scenes were increased, making the sequences which felt rushed before more fleshed out and satisfying. A bit of humour was added too.
    Expand
  4. Dec 29, 2014
    10
    The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a phenomenal beginning to a phenomenal trilogy. This movie nails every single aspect that it has perfectly. This is one of my favorite movies of all time.
  5. Aug 9, 2011
    10
    This movie is the beginning of the best trilogy ever and it's so good! It brings humor, sad moments, intense battles and solid performances. Every character can be appreciated because they are all likable. This movie is ridiculously good
  6. Apr 1, 2012
    10
    I'm coming to rate this movie because I remember when I first saw it in theaters years ago it is the only time while in a movie ever that I wished it wasn't over. It was enthralling and the film is just absolutely incredible. I cannot think of any movie since that I felt that way. Amazing story, great action, lots of different creatures... everything feels so real. You must see this!
  7. May 26, 2012
    10
    Fellowship it has dazzling visual effects, great action and fantastic performances to spare, and manages to be as visually powerful as it is emotionally. I give this movie 96%.
  8. Aug 9, 2011
    10
    LOTR destroyed my life . Why? Because i will never see such a perfect film ever.This trilogy will hard find its equal
  9. Aug 14, 2010
    10
    I love all of the Lord of the Rings books and movies. Everything about them is absolutely stunning. They are timeless and will be appreciated forever. These will never be redone.
  10. Jul 21, 2011
    10
    This film is my favorite of all time. I usually never give a 10, but I'll make an exception with this masterpiece. All three LOTR movies are excellent, but this one is the best.
  11. Mar 26, 2012
    10
    An absolute masterpiece like no other. Peter Jackson has created something of pure brillance. It is brillantly executed, with powerful music, and a story that truly wonderful. Just think this is only the beginning.
  12. Jun 11, 2013
    10
    A brilliant breathtaking spectacle would be an understatement. It unquestionably perfect, and because it is, I know I will never see a movie(trilogy) better than the Lord of the Rings.
  13. Feb 28, 2013
    10
    A great film. When I watched the first 20 min of the film it had me. One great scene after another, great fantasy plot and awesome music. Deserves nothing less than the full score.
  14. Nov 19, 2011
    10
    An epic beginning, known for its impeccable sound, the script developed, very faithful to the book, good performances, a show well done, as I can say about the soundtrack, direction, costumes, makeup, art direction and visual effects. In short, an excellent movie.
  15. May 27, 2011
    8
    My personal favourite of the trilogy. In large part I think due to the score, the strange hypnotic main theme works perfectly and may get stuck in your head. Fans of the books may be disappointed by characters that do not make it to the filmscript, however the adaptation is skilfully done. Because there is room to pace this large work correctly exposition is a joy and not a necessary chore.
  16. Aug 25, 2012
    9
    This is the second time I have seen this cut of the movie and, although it is very long, I must say I have seldom enjoyed a film as much. I will not try to compare the book with the film; I
  17. Oct 30, 2010
    10
    Peter Jackson's first awesome fantasy debut in this brilliant masterpiece!
  18. Nov 14, 2012
    9
    Lord of the Rings, transcending the genre of fantasy films, is brimming with invention and imagination. A must see!
  19. J.Q.
    Aug 30, 2002
    8
    Yes, the movie did seem to drag at points and the charachters may have been underdeveloped, however, it is made from a FIVE HUNDRED PAGE book. It is excellent for what it is, a brilliant recreation of a classic novel. I also feel sorry for you stupid idiots who have to go and repeat word for word what other people say. You piss us all of so please stop.
  20. P.V.
    Jan 18, 2002
    7
    As I was watching the movie, StarWars were on my mind almost all the time. There is battle of good against evil, there are three parts (well, I mean Episodes 4, 5 and 6) many strange creatures, magic etc. And, here is what I think. All three episodes of StarWars have ends and are independent wholes. First part of LOTR definitely does not have one and this is my main complaint. Maybe they As I was watching the movie, StarWars were on my mind almost all the time. There is battle of good against evil, there are three parts (well, I mean Episodes 4, 5 and 6) many strange creatures, magic etc. And, here is what I think. All three episodes of StarWars have ends and are independent wholes. First part of LOTR definitely does not have one and this is my main complaint. Maybe they wanted to force us to buy and read the book? I won?t buy the book!!! StarWars are faster, and much more interesting. And music, music in StarWars is much much better. In LOTR it is boring and unrecognizable. Expand
  21. HaroonA.
    Feb 8, 2002
    9
    As perfect an adaption as you will get. Rings fascinates, intrigues and creates middle earth.
  22. Will
    Apr 1, 2002
    9
    I'm only not giving this film a "10" because there were still a few iddy-biddy gripes I had with it. HOWEVER, Lord of the Rings was ROBBED of Best Picture by an ever-increasingly geriatric Academy. Yes, I would have cast Saruman differently (he's supposed to look like a trustworthy guy), and I would have had Sean Bean (Boromir) aim for a higher degree of dynamics... but Peter I'm only not giving this film a "10" because there were still a few iddy-biddy gripes I had with it. HOWEVER, Lord of the Rings was ROBBED of Best Picture by an ever-increasingly geriatric Academy. Yes, I would have cast Saruman differently (he's supposed to look like a trustworthy guy), and I would have had Sean Bean (Boromir) aim for a higher degree of dynamics... but Peter Jackson couldn't've done much better than he did. This is in the 'must-see' column. Expand
  23. HarrisonB.
    Aug 8, 2004
    9
    I've never read the books before, so I really didn't want to see this. But when I saw it, I loved it. It is so mesmorizing. Effects are one of the best. Loved the prologue, and loved the characters. Especially Aragorn, Legolas, and the hobbits. Gimli was good. The only thing I thought was a little weird was the ending. But I must say I am very dissapointed with some of the I've never read the books before, so I really didn't want to see this. But when I saw it, I loved it. It is so mesmorizing. Effects are one of the best. Loved the prologue, and loved the characters. Especially Aragorn, Legolas, and the hobbits. Gimli was good. The only thing I thought was a little weird was the ending. But I must say I am very dissapointed with some of the reviews that gave this movie a bad rating. And who ever did, this is a tip, IT'S?A?MOVIE!!!!!! You don't have to hate it because it's different from the book. It's still a great movie. Very good movie. Expand
  24. [Anonymous]
    Dec 19, 2001
    9
    The spirit is alive in this movie. Would I have done a few things differently, yes. Was it possible to get the entire book into a movie in under 3 hours, no. Most cuts were reasonable. The cast was appropriate (particularly the hobbits and Aragorn). In all, I loved it.
  25. ChrisP.
    Dec 28, 2001
    9
    I haven't read the book yet (I've been... uh... busy) so with nothing to compare it to I think that this movie is amazing. I was kind of annoyed at the whole "comic-relief hobbits" deal but, if that's the whole point of hobbits, then maybe I should be giving the movie a 10. I don't think it is, so I won't.
  26. Richard
    Aug 14, 2002
    9
    As good as can be expected from an historically unfilmable book. Surprisingly emotionally involving, especially towards the end. A promising start, and since things get only more interesting from here on in I look forward to see what Jackson has in store.
  27. DanielleB.
    Nov 13, 2004
    10
    I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!
  28. AndrewM.
    Jul 14, 2004
    9
    I haven't read the books...so I can only comment on what I saw and what I experienced when watching this film. And I will keep it short... This is grand filmmaking in the utmost sense. Jackson and co. know and use their tools so adriotly, so passionately, that they have created not just a film but a work of art. It truly is stunning! The story at times is a little slow, but that is I haven't read the books...so I can only comment on what I saw and what I experienced when watching this film. And I will keep it short... This is grand filmmaking in the utmost sense. Jackson and co. know and use their tools so adriotly, so passionately, that they have created not just a film but a work of art. It truly is stunning! The story at times is a little slow, but that is only a reflection of the depth of Tolkien's novels, and also the knowledge of the filmmakers in depicting what they believe important for the film to work, and discarding what is not needed. The slower parts are there for a reason and actually enhance the overall experience. As for the action/war scenes, they are simply mindblowing! If anybody is not satisfied or impressed (if not astonished) with the visuals and sound recording in these scenes, they are never going to be. It just doesn't get any better than this! It's not a film intended for a once-only viewing; there is so much more to glean and sop up here. On a final note, one of the most impressive things about this film is that it works so effectively on it's own, even though it is an adapted work from a trilogy. Doesn't get a 10 only because one of the sequels may be better...though I don't know how! Expand
  29. ChrisR.
    Dec 19, 2001
    9
    Star what? George who? Forget about that washed-up, crazy old man and go see the film that's gonna school him but good... An incredible portrayal of a palpable and furious Evil and the weariness that comes from staying just one step ahead of it.
  30. DavidL.
    Dec 19, 2001
    6
    Great spectacle, poor story. The greatest fault of the movie is that is started with a weak script that dooms its effort to bring Tolkien's magic to life. The casting and cinematography are good, as are the battle scenes. However the story departs from Tolkien in all the wrong places--too much setup of the ring, not enough on the hobbits and their relationship. The attempt to glorify Great spectacle, poor story. The greatest fault of the movie is that is started with a weak script that dooms its effort to bring Tolkien's magic to life. The casting and cinematography are good, as are the battle scenes. However the story departs from Tolkien in all the wrong places--too much setup of the ring, not enough on the hobbits and their relationship. The attempt to glorify Arwen's role by changing her character fall flat, as does the repeated sequences with Saruman and Sauron's eye. Expand
  31. BobD.
    Dec 25, 2001
    6
    If the movie was any longer, I would have needed an I.V.
  32. LisaB.
    Dec 29, 2001
    6
    It was visually stunning and emotionally empty for me. I had trouble staying awake.
  33. Feb 23, 2011
    10
    The scene where Gandalf fights the Balrog in the mines is easily the worst movie scene of all times. All that money for CGI, and they come up with THAT ?
    The problem with that movie is: everthing is meant to be SO meaningful. It is like an actor laughing at his own jokes. The futile attempt to create depth and meaning in each and every single scene completely destroys the movie, and the story.
  34. FayeG.
    Sep 11, 2002
    10
    I LOVED IT!!!!!!
  35. Sep 2, 2010
    8
    **** yeah! This **** cinematic glory, **** Fun and logical, this movie is one of the best adaptations of any book; a true master class for any director that strives to transcend the source material. My fave of the series because it has the least boring CGI battle scenes and negligible portions of Orlando Bloom in proportion to the rest of the cast. Toss on the Jiffy-Pop and treat yourself**** yeah! This **** cinematic glory, **** Fun and logical, this movie is one of the best adaptations of any book; a true master class for any director that strives to transcend the source material. My fave of the series because it has the least boring CGI battle scenes and negligible portions of Orlando Bloom in proportion to the rest of the cast. Toss on the Jiffy-Pop and treat yourself (to the non-extended theatrical). Expand
  36. Mar 29, 2011
    8
    I didn't read the book, but this was a very enjoyable movie and the least complicated Lord of the Rings movie. However, did the movie really have to be that long?
  37. May 26, 2011
    9
    The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and its sequels are the only fantasy films based on books that have not disappointed me. I know that that isn't really saying much with great disapointments such as the Harry Potter movies, Twilight Saga and Eragon (yeah, I'm young) -Oh, and the Chronicles of Narnia, but this really is worth watching whether you read the books or not. BasedThe Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and its sequels are the only fantasy films based on books that have not disappointed me. I know that that isn't really saying much with great disapointments such as the Harry Potter movies, Twilight Saga and Eragon (yeah, I'm young) -Oh, and the Chronicles of Narnia, but this really is worth watching whether you read the books or not. Based on the first two The Lord of the Rings books by J.R.R. Tolkien it is a typical fantasy with elfs, dwarfs, wizards and goblins(called Orcs) but is boosted up to such an epic scale. Peter Jackson and everyone else who worked on this film really knew what they were doing. Now stop reading this rambling of text and go watch the movie. Rent it if you have to. Just don't let this one by you. Umm... Why are you still here? Expand
  38. 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.
  39. 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!
  40. Nicenin
    Feb 14, 2002
    3
    Looks fantastic but sorely lacking in magic and narrative coherence.
  41. 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.
  42. MatthewA.
    Dec 1, 2004
    5
    I know that my rating will encite hatred from LOTR fans but I'm sorry, the movie, sans the special effects, did not make me fall in love with it. I NEED to fall in love with a movie. I WANT to fall in love with a movie. And LOTR was just a bad date to me. Normally in these big budget adaptations they try and be as accurate as possible regarding time, events, wardrobe, etc. In this I know that my rating will encite hatred from LOTR fans but I'm sorry, the movie, sans the special effects, did not make me fall in love with it. I NEED to fall in love with a movie. I WANT to fall in love with a movie. And LOTR was just a bad date to me. Normally in these big budget adaptations they try and be as accurate as possible regarding time, events, wardrobe, etc. In this case the totally forgot character development. I couldn't have cared less what happened to Frodo and his crew. Sorry fans of the movie I just don't get LOTR and I even love Sci-Fi and Fantasy movies. Star Wars (the first three, episodes 4, 5, & 6) kick this movie's ass all over Gondor. Expand
  43. AppleH.
    Apr 19, 2002
    0
    An absolute horrible movie devoid of any character development. Pure garbage!
  44. 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
  45. ChristopherE
    May 7, 2009
    5
    One of the more over-rated films of the 21st century that owes it's success more to nostalgia than to taste.
  46. 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!???
  47. 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!
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. 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.
  51. 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
  52. 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!
  53. 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).
  54. 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.
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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.
  58. 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. Expand
  59. 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.
  60. 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
  61. EdisonR.
    Jan 1, 2002
    7
    Movie true to form. The movie was believable. The special effects was great. The story left us hanging for the next eposide. The use of the teamwork was great. The movie sticked close to the book
  62. JackD.
    Jan 3, 2002
    8
    It could be called "Long of the Rings" (because of the inclusion of all the unused scenes from "The Mummy Returns"), but it is highly entertaining. I cant wait for the next 16 hours....
  63. ColierD.
    Jan 3, 2002
    6
    The special effects are, of course, good. However, the film is ultimately just an overlong film that is too intense for young children and is, at heart, a simplistic action flick that has little to offer adults.
  64. VladimirP.
    Feb 4, 2002
    9
    Cool!
  65. 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.
  66. OR
    Jan 5, 2006
    8
    The ratio of green to red ratings r around 7 : 3.. tats enough to watch tis movie, story is simple enough, not much use of a brain here to figure it out.
  67. NeilA.
    Oct 9, 2002
    7
    Ok - I've read all the users' reviews... About halfway through the film I kept looking at my watch wondering when this thing would end. Or maybe when it would start. Having no prior knowledge of the story, I expected a traditional movie - meaning a plot, and that usually includes some sort of ending. I didn't know it was merely part 1 of 3. Scene after scene I kept thinking Ok - I've read all the users' reviews... About halfway through the film I kept looking at my watch wondering when this thing would end. Or maybe when it would start. Having no prior knowledge of the story, I expected a traditional movie - meaning a plot, and that usually includes some sort of ending. I didn't know it was merely part 1 of 3. Scene after scene I kept thinking how ridiculous it was that despite all odds, the hero always overcame those incredible odds to be triumphant. It's a shame the best actor/character was the only one to perish in all the fighting. On the way home from the theater I would have rated this movie a 5, only for its excellent cinematography and Ian McKellen's performance. But after digesting it more, I appreciated it more too, and would have to upgrade my rating. But viewers should be forewarned. If you want to lose yourself in a fantasy world, go ahead and enjoy the movie. But if you want to see a good action movie, you'll be disappointed. Expand
  68. AndrewC.
    Feb 1, 2002
    9
    What else can I say? Great film. Can't wait for the upcoming sequels.
  69. HendryS.
    Feb 5, 2002
    7
    Overall, this movie would be in the higher end of the list, as many may expect. It has impressive cinematic and audio effects. The storyline is great, but I felt the drag in the middle of it, a little too long. Expected more wizardry spells from the wizard.
  70. 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!!!!
  71. SeanR.
    Aug 7, 2002
    5
    This is one of those movies where you need to expect an 500 page story crammed not action. The action weren't that good and the demon characters looked really cheesy. The plot also really didn't make a whole lot of sense either. The thing I will never get over though are the names Frodo, Bilbo. Did Mike Tyson name these guys?
  72. T.
    Sep 13, 2002
    5
    I think the movie was ok. too much violence though for a movie where the audience maybe children. or even adults for that matter. this lord of the ring thing is everywhere, like all the bookstore now has huge display on this.. renewed interest? oh well. some of the charaters are downright annoying like those two short guys.
  73. AndrewJ.
    Aug 26, 2003
    7
    This movie was really boring. it wastn the best i would expect. i thought that it would shock me out of my seat but no it didnt i fell asleep. Untill the ending. That was ok.
  74. Pedro
    Oct 6, 2005
    8
    I used to think it was the best movie ever...until i saw part 3 :D. i much prefer the extended DVD cut, which really enhances the movie, bringing up to a 9/10 rating. But RoTK kicks this one's butt!
  75. JinC.
    Dec 20, 2001
    6
    Jackson approaches the film DEATHLY AFRAID that he will bore someone. many scenes from the book are re-imagined for excitement's sake but it makes for an altogether different experience than that conveyed by the original story. also, many of the characters are not only sharply drawn but are altogether caricatures. gandalf and galadriel are good examples of the writers missing the Jackson approaches the film DEATHLY AFRAID that he will bore someone. many scenes from the book are re-imagined for excitement's sake but it makes for an altogether different experience than that conveyed by the original story. also, many of the characters are not only sharply drawn but are altogether caricatures. gandalf and galadriel are good examples of the writers missing the complexity in tolkien's work. though perhaps it is less the inability of the writers than their lack of faith in the audience to 'get it'. also, i'd forgotten how 'gimmicky' jackson could be. i would have much preferred the steady camera and editing of john ford, akira kurosawa or david lean for this series. the quick cuts and cascading dissolves make the film seem a bit less epic and a tad more cheap. but jackson does combat scenes VERY well and nearly all is forgiven once we hit moria. the special effects are great and weta is to be congratulated, especially with the 'actor shrinking' that they seem to do so effortlessly. it's an ok film with many merits, but it's not as 'true' as many say it is to the original and it certainly does not merit all the acclaim (and the near 100% metacritic score) it enjoys. Expand
  76. DanZ.
    Dec 22, 2001
    8
    An excellent adaptation of JRR Tolkien's LOTR, but has some very key mistakes which lower its score.. I found it a little confusing. First, why do merry and pippen go on the trip? Nowhere in the movie does gandalf or frodo tell them. Another thing that annoyed me was that merry and pippen were just comic relief, and reminded me of episode 1's JAR JAR BINKS... A good movie though.
  77. YohannesA.
    Dec 20, 2001
    6
    Very drab and politacally correct untill the slaying starts. Felt a lot like watching Bakshi's lord of the rings.
  78. RyanM.
    Dec 31, 2001
    9
    One of the best adventure movies of the decade! It's not scared to be what it wants to be...which is long, audacious and anything but the ordinary adventure film.
  79. 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
  80. 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?!?!
  81. MikeyG.
    Oct 3, 2002
    7
    Ok, I had to add in my two cents. Obviously everyone that added a review is a Tolkien fan. To those of us that have never read the books: The movie does not end!!! All the movie consists of is a series of self-contained action sequences which barely move the plot along. Granted, the plot is simply this: Take the ring to be destroyed. Have adventures along the way. That's pretty much Ok, I had to add in my two cents. Obviously everyone that added a review is a Tolkien fan. To those of us that have never read the books: The movie does not end!!! All the movie consists of is a series of self-contained action sequences which barely move the plot along. Granted, the plot is simply this: Take the ring to be destroyed. Have adventures along the way. That's pretty much it. I do give this movie a good rating (7) because it is well done and visually stunning. The characters are likable enough, too. However, no nudity, no sex, and NO FRIGGEN' ENDING do not make this a 10. I'm sorry, Tolkien freaks. Expand
  82. 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
  83. MichaelM.
    Mar 10, 2002
    9
    This movie is terrific! I've never been one for Tolkien, but the movie is outstanding. I've gone back to see it five times.
  84. 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
  85. MarcE.
    Jun 23, 2002
    5
    You've seen the movie. Now buy the video game!
  86. AndrewF.
    Aug 27, 2002
    7
    FOOLS! Each and every one of you half-brained meglomaniacs that gave this fill any score under 5. How can this movie be overhyped! It is us, the moviegoing public that created this travesty with most summer films. Shame on you for not seeing this film for what it is. I am not a LOTR fanatic, I have never read the books. Yet, I am still know passionate film making. If you can't stand FOOLS! Each and every one of you half-brained meglomaniacs that gave this fill any score under 5. How can this movie be overhyped! It is us, the moviegoing public that created this travesty with most summer films. Shame on you for not seeing this film for what it is. I am not a LOTR fanatic, I have never read the books. Yet, I am still know passionate film making. If you can't stand the "hoopla" go see the movie opening weekend and shut the hell up. It will never stop. We are all damned to suffer together. Expand
  87. 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.
  88. 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.
  89. 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?
  90. Stefi
    Feb 27, 2003
    9
    A great depiction of Tolkien's book. Good acting, imagery, and real emotion make the fantasy believable.
  91. LindaL.
    Apr 30, 2003
    9
    Nearly perfect. This movie takes you into middle earth and leaves you begging for the next installment.
  92. 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
  93. LanceE.
    Feb 16, 2004
    6
    -Not a total dissapointment but nontheless, overrated. -The Pros: -Ian McKellen and Viggo are rather apt for their roles. The music is epic and exhilarating. The scenery of New Zealand is wonderfully captured. There are some nice battle sequences. -The cons: Firstly, it is not very true to the novel-counterparts, as many have pointed out. In the novels the characters lived and breathed. -Not a total dissapointment but nontheless, overrated. -The Pros: -Ian McKellen and Viggo are rather apt for their roles. The music is epic and exhilarating. The scenery of New Zealand is wonderfully captured. There are some nice battle sequences. -The cons: Firstly, it is not very true to the novel-counterparts, as many have pointed out. In the novels the characters lived and breathed. In this, the heroes have been twisted to suit Jackson's need to make them more "bigger" than the actually are. What this means is that the characters in the novels are deeply flaws, even great Gandalf. In the movies they are much more grand. This is mostly because the movie has been made more action-oriented than the novels. As Jin C said, "Jackson approaches the film DEATHLY AFRAID that he will bore someone. Many scenes from the book are re-imagined for excitement's sake but it makes for an altogether different experience than that conveyed by the original story." -The characters have surely been slaughtered, made more epic. -Everyone says the special effects are great, but they're decent. Jackson and team make the scenes very dark, to hide the need for detail in the cgi. Monsters move unrealistically and look plastic. The point is, you can easily tell that the scenes inteded to look real, look fake. As F. Scott Fitzgerald said about the Thirties is true of this movie and its sequels, "the most expensive orgy in history". -As for those who say this movie has no plot, no, it does have a plot, and its a good one. Well, the book has a plot and the movie doesn't carry it out well. The problem is in the book we feel for the characters, we get much more information on the situation than the movie can ever give, and the narrator acts as a guide. That is why the movie seems lacking in plot, because LOTR is meant to be a novel, not a movie. -Jackson has royally screwed up by putting in his own scenes, altering others, and totally removing some. So if you got a problem with plot, don't blame Tolkein, blame the director. -And yes, the ending did suck because it really didn't end. For those of you who say this is a trilogy and it's supposed to make you anticipate the next movie, you're wrong. Firstly, it ended on a poor note--not at all making me anticipate the next movie. Secondly, the LOTR books aren't a trilogy, they're one novel. Tolkien has said this himself. Don't believe me? Read the novels. Book 1 ends and Book 2 picks up not days or hours afterward, but mere seconds. That's why the FOTR's ending is poor, because it was meant to be read one after another--and the movies can't do that. -Other things: Arwen has been included as an imporant character in this. Why? Because they got an big-shot actress to play her, and not wanting to let the money go to waste, they gave her additional scenes and a love-subplot with Aragorn, which is only mentioned in the notes section of the book. -With this comes another problem. People say a 400+ page book is hard to convey in movie form, but guess what? Jackson adds his own scenes to make it even longer. Besides, the book focuses heavily on describing every little detail in the surroundings; it is not really longer than 250+ without description. (Since the movie doesn't describe anything, it's free from time constraints) -Also, for those who think Jackons is the greatest filmmaker of all time because of the LOTR series, think again. What makes him the greatest director? The fact that he already had a whole story on his hands complete in excruciating detail, with plot and characters already mapped out? Or the fact that the script was already 99% complete? Or maybe the locales which were so vividly described in the novels or the pictures that Tolkien drew his backgrounds. Yeah, I'm sure Jackson was stumped when begining this series. -Yes, he has dedicated about a decade of his life to this series, and it does have its merits, and I'm sure he DID work hard; but what do you expect from a trilogy? Movies take from 2-3 years, so what's the big deal? Lucas has been working on StarWars from 1977 to the present. -Summary: Good in some respects, but pretty bad in others. Too long, decent as a standalone movie, and terrible as a rendition of the book. Much too over-hyped. This is not Tolkien's LOTR, it is Peter Jackon's LOTR. Expand
  94. CameronS.
    Mar 31, 2004
    9
    This movie was a classic. peter jackson has taken a book and turned it into a masterpiece!
  95. JamesM
    Nov 19, 2005
    9
    What a magnificent and striking this film is. Masquerading as commercial entertainment, The Fellowship of the Ring sometimes borders on being art, and demonstrates was is possible when a truly brave filmmaker is given a good idea and a large budget. A must see.
  96. Leo
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Amazing Film.
  97. Mike
    Feb 6, 2005
    5
    I was sooo disappointed by this movie!!!
  98. EricR
    Jun 16, 2009
    6
    It suffers from meandering moments that lag the story, choppy editing, and underdeveloped characters. But it somehow managed to hold my attention thanks to the amazing enthralling world Jackson has realized for the big screen and the flawless cast.
  99. GavinC
    Jul 28, 2009
    7
    The biggest thing that ticked me off was the character of Frodo, who seemed a bit too 'I'm-so-heroic'.
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.