New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 19, 2001
9.0
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 1751 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,615
Mixed:
61
Negative:
75
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
10
ChrisSep 24, 2005
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 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
AnsonG.Jun 23, 2006
Wonderful adventure movie. Best ever.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
fusion_13May 25, 2014
I just cant decide between this movie and the 3rd LOTR movie of which is my favourite. The action and story is amazing and keeps you glued to the screen from start to end!
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
9
MovieMasterEdMar 22, 2016
Partially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final billPartially adapted for the screen once before by Ralph Bakshi in an unsuccessful 1978 animated version, Tolkien’s 1,000-page yarn poses all manner of challenges for a screen transfer — imaginative, logistical and financial. With the final bill likely to come in somewhere near $400 million when production and marketing costs are all tallied, one has to credit New Line Cinema with a tremendous amount of guts for shooting the moon for all three pictures with a young New Zealand director with only one genuinely notable, and small-scaled, film (“Heavenly Creatures”) to his credit.

But Jackson must have convinced someone that he would do it right, a view thoroughly borne out by what’s up on the screen. Evocatively delineating the many aspects of Middle-Earth on tremendously diverse locations in New Zealand in resourceful collaboration with a massive crew, Jackson keeps a firm hand on the work’s central themes of good versus evil, rising to the occasion and group loyalty in the face of adversity, and always keeps things moving without getting bogged down in frills or effects for effects’ sake.

Pic’s main problem, however, is inherent in the odyssey-like structure of the tale; the “and then, and then, and then” nature of the narrative becomes necessarily repetitive and even a bit wearisome at times, and ultimately arbitrary in the sense that one battle more or less with the Orcs, Ringwraiths or Uruk-Hai wouldn’t have made much difference. Lack of dramatic arcs involving rising action, relaxation and interconnecting story strands unfortunately makes the film’s running time feel pretty much like the three hours it is.

The film also very well handles the matter of perspective and height differentiation between the Hobbits and Dwarfs, for example, who are meant to be less than four feet tall, and the human-scaled characters, something that must have been as difficult as many other more obvious effects. Andrew Lesnie’s lensing has its slightly murky moments but is predominantly muscular in putting forceful images on a large canvas.

While he has perhaps not written a classic epic adventure score in the manner of Korngold, Rozsa or Steiner, Howard Shore has composed two hours of music that is constantly supportive, creative and complementary to the action. As such, it represents an object lesson that handily points up how unnecessarily intrusive and insufferably distracting John Williams’ work is in “Harry Potter.”

One place where “Harry” outflanks “Rings” is the in the starriness of its cast, but the film is nonetheless capably served. One hallmark of the players is their startlingly blue eyes, especially those of Wood, McKellen and Blanchett. Wood’s Frodo spends most of “Fellowship” coming to terms with his unwanted responsibility as Ringbearer, and is generally uncertain and frightened as a result, something that will no doubt change over the course of the two remaining installments. McKellen delivers Gandalf with great relish and gusto, giving the picture a shot in the arm whenever he’s around, which is often. Mortensen and Bean cut dynamic figures as Frodo’s expert swordsmen, Rhys-Davies is a barrel of fierce defiance, while horror vet Lee is silkilysuperb as the chief nemesis in a black tower. Blanchett and Tyler have relatively little to do, at least in this first episode, and the small attempts at humor, particularly with the tag-alongs Merry and Pippin, seem half-hearted and rote.

Still, New Line and company should be able to breathe a sigh of relief after the picture comes out, and there is little doubt that those who grab the “Rings” at the start will anxiously await Frodo’s trip into ever more perilous territory a year hence.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
10
JawsPapi87Aug 9, 2011
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 of 7 users found this helpful61
All this user's reviews
10
theofficeApr 1, 2012
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 thinkI'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! Expand
6 of 7 users found this helpful61
All this user's reviews
10
heyitsmegrif4May 26, 2012
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%.
9 of 11 users found this helpful92
All this user's reviews
10
marian1233321Aug 9, 2011
LOTR destroyed my life . Why? Because i will never see such a perfect film ever.This trilogy will hard find its equal
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
10
wesker2012Nov 18, 2012
A classic movie.
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
10
rodericrinehartAug 14, 2010
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.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
10
WinterfellJul 21, 2011
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.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
10
csw12Mar 26, 2012
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.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
10
Trev29Jun 11, 2013
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.
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
10
ozgeekFeb 11, 2012
A epic adventure masterpiece. I had to watch several times to understand some of the dialogue but when I do understand, it is wonderful well done. I have never read the books but when I was in a bookstore, soon after viewing the movie at theA epic adventure masterpiece. I had to watch several times to understand some of the dialogue but when I do understand, it is wonderful well done. I have never read the books but when I was in a bookstore, soon after viewing the movie at the cinemas, I bought the novel. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
10
CaestusFeb 28, 2013
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.
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
10
asbeloliverNov 19, 2011
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. InAn 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. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
10
WheelzFourReelzDec 29, 2014
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.
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
8
tonyGreenMay 27, 2011
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 theMy 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. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
9
Andys_ReviewsAug 25, 2012
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
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
10
MovieLonely94Oct 30, 2010
Peter Jackson's first awesome fantasy debut in this brilliant masterpiece!
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
9
cameronmorewoodNov 14, 2012
Lord of the Rings, transcending the genre of fantasy films, is brimming with invention and imagination. A must see!
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
8
J.Q.Aug 30, 2002
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 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
7
P.V.Jan 18, 2002
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 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
HaroonA.Feb 8, 2002
As perfect an adaption as you will get. Rings fascinates, intrigues and creates middle earth.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
WillApr 1, 2002
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 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
HarrisonB.Aug 8, 2004
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 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
[Anonymous]Dec 19, 2001
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 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
ChrisP.Dec 28, 2001
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 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
RichardAug 14, 2002
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 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
DanielleB.Nov 13, 2004
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
AndrewM.Jul 14, 2004
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 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
9
ChrisR.Dec 19, 2001
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 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
6
DavidL.Dec 19, 2001
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 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful
6
BobD.Dec 25, 2001
If the movie was any longer, I would have needed an I.V.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
6
LisaB.Dec 29, 2001
It was visually stunning and emotionally empty for me. I had trouble staying awake.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
10
NazguleroFeb 23, 2011
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
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.
Expand
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews
10
FayeG.Sep 11, 2002
I LOVED IT!!!!!!
1 of 3 users found this helpful
8
TimeSep 2, 2010
**** 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**** 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
8
gm101Mar 29, 2011
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?
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
9
SeriouslyMay 26, 2011
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,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. 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
0
RobertoL.Mar 16, 2002
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 of 8 users found this helpful
1
JanetS.Jun 14, 2002
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!
1 of 4 users found this helpful
4
HISHEhebJul 8, 2014
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 שתרדמוסרט 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
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
3
NiceninFeb 14, 2002
Looks fantastic but sorely lacking in magic and narrative coherence.
1 of 5 users found this helpful
1
BobB.Feb 19, 2002
Weak on every level. No character development at all. Just three hours of cgi and dull dialogue. I'll pass on the sequel.
1 of 5 users found this helpful
5
MatthewA.Dec 1, 2004
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 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
1 of 5 users found this helpful
0
AppleH.Apr 19, 2002
An absolute horrible movie devoid of any character development. Pure garbage!
1 of 5 users found this helpful
5
ChristopherEMay 7, 2009
One of the more over-rated films of the 21st century that owes it's success more to nostalgia than to taste.
7 of 41 users found this helpful
3
RobM.Jan 3, 2002
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!???
1 of 6 users found this helpful
3
KimSep 2, 2002
Let me just put it this way...I walked into the movie half an hour late and it was STILL too long!
1 of 6 users found this helpful
3
SeanB.Apr 20, 2002
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 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. Expand
1 of 6 users found this helpful
3
CalaveraSep 4, 2002
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 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
1 of 6 users found this helpful
3
JeepyWDec 21, 2001
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.
1 of 6 users found this helpful
3
RobertH.Jan 13, 2002
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 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
1 of 6 users found this helpful
0
Carol-AnnC.Feb 23, 2002
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!
1 of 6 users found this helpful
2
D.T.Mar 17, 2002
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).
1 of 7 users found this helpful
0
BarbaraD.Jun 1, 2002
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.
1 of 7 users found this helpful
1
NedNov 7, 2002
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 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
1 of 7 users found this helpful
0
MoviemanMaxdawgJan 26, 2004
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 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
1 of 7 users found this helpful
0
JaredH.Apr 1, 2002
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.
1 of 9 users found this helpful
0
MikeF.Jul 25, 2006
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 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
5 of 59 users found this helpful
0
NiggAOct 23, 2007
It sucked my left nut on the right side bullshit it sucked both the balls freestyle that shit and eat it.
1 of 28 users found this helpful
0
KenCApr 25, 2010
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 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
1 of 29 users found this helpful
7
EdisonR.Jan 1, 2002
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
JackD.Jan 3, 2002
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....
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
ColierD.Jan 3, 2002
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
VladimirP.Feb 4, 2002
Cool!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
ForwegMar 5, 2004
Hollywood trash. Please read the books and never watch this garbage. At least they didn't ruin Tom Bombadil's image.
0 of 6 users found this helpful
8
ORJan 5, 2006
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
NeilA.Oct 9, 2002
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
AndrewC.Feb 1, 2002
What else can I say? Great film. Can't wait for the upcoming sequels.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
HendryS.Feb 5, 2002
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
PoopinskiS.Aug 7, 2002
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 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!!!! Expand
0 of 4 users found this helpful
5
SeanR.Aug 7, 2002
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. 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? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
T.Sep 13, 2002
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
AndrewJ.Aug 26, 2003
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
PedroOct 6, 2005
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!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
JinC.Dec 20, 2001
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, 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
8
DanZ.Dec 22, 2001
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. 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
YohannesA.Dec 20, 2001
Very drab and politacally correct untill the slaying starts. Felt a lot like watching Bakshi's lord of the rings.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
RyanM.Dec 31, 2001
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
TonyR.Jan 13, 2002
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 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
0 of 5 users found this helpful
1
GeriDec 30, 2002
This was one of the most boring unrewarding movies I have ever seen. I still don't get the hype about it?!?!
0 of 4 users found this helpful
7
MikeyG.Oct 3, 2002
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
WillR.Jan 4, 2002
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 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
0 of 4 users found this helpful
9
MichaelM.Mar 10, 2002
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.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
Dr.EdB.Jun 16, 2002
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 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
0 of 3 users found this helpful
5
MarcE.Jun 23, 2002
You've seen the movie. Now buy the video game!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
7
AndrewF.Aug 27, 2002
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 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful
1
NicoleAug 8, 2002
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. 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. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful
2
SeanS.Sep 2, 2002
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.
0 of 5 users found this helpful
0
JDec 12, 2003
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 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? Expand
0 of 6 users found this helpful
9
StefiFeb 27, 2003
A great depiction of Tolkien's book. Good acting, imagery, and real emotion make the fantasy believable.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
LindaL.Apr 30, 2003
Nearly perfect. This movie takes you into middle earth and leaves you begging for the next installment.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
AlexM.Dec 4, 2004
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 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
0 of 5 users found this helpful
6
LanceE.Feb 16, 2004
-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 -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. Collapse
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
CameronS.Mar 31, 2004
This movie was a classic. peter jackson has taken a book and turned it into a masterpiece!
0 of 1 users found this helpful
9
JamesMNov 19, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
LeoDec 8, 2005
Amazing Film.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
MikeFeb 6, 2005
I was sooo disappointed by this movie!!!
0 of 3 users found this helpful