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. Oct 30, 2010
    10
    Peter Jackson's first awesome fantasy debut in this brilliant masterpiece!
  2. 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
  3. Aug 31, 2010
    10
    Its been a while since I read the book, but from what I remember, the movie misses out a few things. But it doesn't matter! This is the perfect fantasy movie. It may be a bit clichéd at times, but that is expected. Watching it for the second (or maybe third) time, I realize how perfect this is, and how every other movie of this genre tries to live up to the bar set so high byIts been a while since I read the book, but from what I remember, the movie misses out a few things. But it doesn't matter! This is the perfect fantasy movie. It may be a bit clichéd at times, but that is expected. Watching it for the second (or maybe third) time, I realize how perfect this is, and how every other movie of this genre tries to live up to the bar set so high by this movie. Expand
  4. 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.
  5. SebH
    May 31, 2010
    7
    OK, so it's a pioneering movie with some of the best special effects in existence, but that all seems to be a mask for this film's numerous flaws, namely the incredible broadness, the truly awful scripting and expository dialogue ("Even the smallest person can change the course of history"), and I know it's a small-ish gripe but the soundtrack is TERRIBLE; alternating OK, so it's a pioneering movie with some of the best special effects in existence, but that all seems to be a mask for this film's numerous flaws, namely the incredible broadness, the truly awful scripting and expository dialogue ("Even the smallest person can change the course of history"), and I know it's a small-ish gripe but the soundtrack is TERRIBLE; alternating between overstated portentous and sickeningly saccharine. Granted, it's incredible that they managed to make a film out of the book, but the execution could have been a hell of a lot more understated and slick. Expand
  6. VictorG
    May 4, 2010
    10
    This is my favourite movie of all Time & by saying so i don't need to give any details or reasons.
  7. 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
  8. RobbyZ.
    Apr 8, 2010
    10
    Extraordinary. Wondrous to behold.
  9. SamF
    Mar 23, 2010
    10
    This film is a breathtaking, awe inspiring masterpiece of cinema.
  10. ConnorM
    Sep 5, 2009
    10
    Simply; one of the best films of all time. This is my favorite of the 3 (and the other 2 weren't too shabby). Everything from the acting, to the script, to the action was just superb. Sir Ian McKellen was amazing and I can't wait for his next appearence in "The Hobbit".
  11. 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'.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. DudeP
    Apr 10, 2009
    10
    Prolly the greatest movie of alltime. The fellowship was the best of all three lord of the rings movies.
  15. AdnanA.
    Jul 19, 2008
    10
    When I watched the lord of the rings for the first time I was either 9 or 10 and I didn't understand a single thing about this movie. I was like why the hell is everybody jumping for this ring. Now many years later the lord of the rings trilogy remains my favorite! Story... If you get the plot then it's a story that's gonna captivate you even after the end of the movie. When I watched the lord of the rings for the first time I was either 9 or 10 and I didn't understand a single thing about this movie. I was like why the hell is everybody jumping for this ring. Now many years later the lord of the rings trilogy remains my favorite! Story... If you get the plot then it's a story that's gonna captivate you even after the end of the movie. Kudos to J.R.R.Tolkien for creating such a world and Peter Jackson for filling this world with life. Acting... Every character is special and all the credit goes to the actors. Each and every actor, has carried out their roles with dedication and devotion. No complains. Direction... I'd only say that no other person in this universe could have made lord of the rings other than Peter Jackson. Visuals... The fighting scenes are exhilarating! Visuals are one of the strongest points of this movie. It's not easy for a 3 hour movie to keep you entertained for long but this movie makes you beg for more! These movies are made once in a decade and to not see them is the biggest mistake of your life. Expand
  16. JaredC.
    Feb 14, 2008
    10
    Peter Jackson awakens us into this breathtaking astonishing trilogy The Lord of the Rings. Jackson views a unique conception of fantasy and engages us with plenty of detail. After that crap animated Lord of the Rings came out, I could never get the horrific sensation of bad elements in the film out of my head. But in The Fellowship, Jackson amazes our pupils and widens our hearts into his Peter Jackson awakens us into this breathtaking astonishing trilogy The Lord of the Rings. Jackson views a unique conception of fantasy and engages us with plenty of detail. After that crap animated Lord of the Rings came out, I could never get the horrific sensation of bad elements in the film out of my head. But in The Fellowship, Jackson amazes our pupils and widens our hearts into his beautiful imagination that will be cherished for generations. The soudtrack will raise your heart strings as every scene has its own heartwarming beat or song that brings each a favorable rhythm each time a new place in the story is discovered to develop more build-up in the plot and setting. The Shire, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Moria, and Amon-Hen each have their own soundtrack so when you think of that one place, you think of the music Howard Shore uses in that setting. The character development is tremendous and each and every image in this film is absolutely beautiful. Jackson succeeds in this brilliant and amazing picture and will now be defined as a master movie-maker. The Fellowship of the Ring is highly recommended and magnificent. Expand
  17. 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.
  18. RandyM.
    Apr 22, 2007
    10
    An epic movie if I ever saw one. Captivating and just plain fun to watch. This movie is, indeed, art.
  19. MikeF.
    Jul 25, 2006
    0
    Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was the impression I had that Jackson thought he was creating a work of art. What a joke. In fact, I wish it were a joke -- a bunch of one-dimensional Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was the impression I had that Jackson thought he was creating a work of art. What a joke. In fact, I wish it were a joke -- a bunch of one-dimensional characters speaking a sort of bad-Shakespeare dialect. Good lord. Expand
  20. AnsonG.
    Jun 23, 2006
    10
    Wonderful adventure movie. Best ever.
  21. JeffZ.
    May 2, 2006
    10
    The whole series is the best, but the first movie is the most faithful of the bunch. a better fantasy epic than star wars. why roger ebert thinks harry potter and star wars is better is beyond me.
  22. 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.
  23. Leo
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Amazing Film.
  24. 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.
  25. KatieM.
    Oct 28, 2005
    9
    The
  26. 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!
  27. 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.
  28. LisaG.
    Sep 12, 2005
    10
    Wonderful, just wonderful.... even 4 years later.
  29. IceFlow
    Aug 23, 2005
    10
    I thnk it was a great movie!!!!!, and the fact that Orlando Bloom is in it makes it even better!!!!!!! The first movie was just getting the journey started. And all you guys who rated this movie below 4 can stuff it!!!
  30. BeccaP.
    Aug 3, 2005
    10
    Great movie!
  31. Jake
    Jul 17, 2005
    10
    Well, Ilze S., if you think there's no storyline, maybe you should pay more attention, if you can focus for more than an hour-and-a-half. Although the fight scenes, special effects, and costumes are breathtaking, the heart of the movie is the story, one of the greatest tales of Good and Evil of all time, ever. For that, we can giveTolkien ALL the credit. All in all, this trilogy is a Well, Ilze S., if you think there's no storyline, maybe you should pay more attention, if you can focus for more than an hour-and-a-half. Although the fight scenes, special effects, and costumes are breathtaking, the heart of the movie is the story, one of the greatest tales of Good and Evil of all time, ever. For that, we can giveTolkien ALL the credit. All in all, this trilogy is a masterpiece, and as a long time fan of the books, they've lived up to ALL of my expectations. (except Tom Bombadil, sadly......maybe they should do a T.V. series spin off!) Expand
  32. LlsE.
    Jun 18, 2005
    10
    The best film I have ever seen.
  33. Anonymous
    Jun 8, 2005
    10
    A great start to a great trilogy. Never bores you. Despite all the mythicism surrounding him, Frodo is a character almost anybody can relate to. The battles are great, but Moria's where it really shines. Scenery is great. Start here and work you way through. It only gets better.
  34. Mike
    Feb 6, 2005
    5
    I was sooo disappointed by this movie!!!
  35. chrism.
    Jan 28, 2005
    10
    Great, great movie. emotional and detailed to the last scene. I did not read the book, but this movie makes me want to.
  36. MattL.
    Jan 28, 2005
    10
    This is the movie that started the mother of all movie trilogies. Filmmaking will never be the same. Visually stunning, emotionally riveting, and dramatically inspiring.
  37. richardf.
    Jan 11, 2005
    10
    The new star wars for the 21st century. One of the most perfect films ever made. Screenplay, Directing, Editing, Costume, Casting, special effects all mold together seamlessly to create an istant masterpeice that is going to imitated for years to come.
  38. IlzeS.
    Dec 26, 2004
    4
    Not a bad movie, but theres no plot and storyline is really bad!
  39. SamG.
    Dec 12, 2004
    10
    I think the reviewers below me need to take another good look at why people say these movies are great. They complain about lack of character development and overused CGI, yet they are completely ignoring the HEART of this enterprise. Not once does Peter Jackson move a scene forward, especially in this first movie of the trilogy, without showing the characters; their feelings, hopes, I think the reviewers below me need to take another good look at why people say these movies are great. They complain about lack of character development and overused CGI, yet they are completely ignoring the HEART of this enterprise. Not once does Peter Jackson move a scene forward, especially in this first movie of the trilogy, without showing the characters; their feelings, hopes, dreams, fears and regrets. We get to see each main character conquer their fear in some way, in the face of grander adversity then appears on the screen more than probably once a year (if at all). Also, the entire crew clearly had a philosophy of not letting special effects overpower the heart of this movie. When something could be filmed without CGI, it WAS filmed without CGI. That's why, if any research is done, their were so many methods of making the hobbits look small, the most rarely used being CGI. Mostly, I feel complaints against this movie surface after the fact that it wins Oscars, as backlash surfaces against anything with so much success. Overall, this movie deserves the highest grade imaginable as it grabs your heart and doesn't let go. To Mr. Matthew A.'s statement he didn't fall in love with it, I can only counter with the fact that I did. But I think an entire generation has as well. Expand
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. a.smith
    Nov 18, 2004
    10
    The film was bloody brilliant also my kids agree to if we could we would of rated the film 20 out of 20. But them was say it no good what to look agin and see what thay like seen as people all have different points all things so if thay done like it thay should not watch in the first place.
  43. DanielleB.
    Nov 13, 2004
    10
    I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!
  44. RyanW
    Oct 20, 2004
    10
    I think this was the greatest movie ever It was so much better than that Harry Potter junk. this movie was so exciting and once I saw the first one I couldn't wait to see what the ending was. so peace brother.
  45. JaneA.
    Aug 8, 2004
    10
    I love the Lord of the Rings films (and books). See the extended editions.
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. BenjaminA.
    Jun 17, 2004
    10
    One of the greatest movies of all time.
  49. BoogerSnot
    Apr 27, 2004
    10
    Some snooty people have given this movie a zero! Which is very uncalled for! I think you people have PMS! Give it another chance! Yes I do have reason to give it a ten! For people who think I'm just shooting the breeze. It had amazing effects that people worked hard on to impress you! Not for you to just sit there and critize. The acting was awesome, it had a good mix of actors. I Some snooty people have given this movie a zero! Which is very uncalled for! I think you people have PMS! Give it another chance! Yes I do have reason to give it a ten! For people who think I'm just shooting the breeze. It had amazing effects that people worked hard on to impress you! Not for you to just sit there and critize. The acting was awesome, it had a good mix of actors. I think its terrible to give this movie a zero! (Although I did have a problem with the fact that Arwen stole Glorfindell's part.) Expand
  50. BritneyB.
    Apr 19, 2004
    10
    Excellent. One of the best fantasies of all time. Peter Jackson & cast/crew have turned J.R.R. Tolkien's book into a fantastic movie.
  51. JoshM.
    Apr 17, 2004
    10
    Excellent! A truly amazing, captivating adventure. One of the greatest movies of all time!
  52. CameronS.
    Mar 31, 2004
    9
    This movie was a classic. peter jackson has taken a book and turned it into a masterpiece!
  53. JohnO.
    Mar 10, 2004
    10
    This might just as well be the the best film ever made. Setting a new standard for motion picture, this is one of those movies that will become a classic, just like Jaws, Psycho and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Except that this one's better. Much better.
  54. 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.
  55. 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
  56. MikeC.
    Feb 7, 2004
    10
    This is the best of three, if you ask me. The strong story more than makes up for the less epic battle scenes. Here the ring is sinister and menacing and the quest to destroy it means something. In addition the story is much stronger and better written than in the sequels.
  57. 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
  58. MartinG.
    Dec 18, 2003
    10
    Great movie, great direction, great photography. Outstanding and amusing from the first minute. The Best: the music and the landscapes, also Sir Ian´s McKellen´s performance The Worst: maybe the end, but it is reasonable because it´s the first movie of the trilogy.
  59. Chickenmouth
    Dec 15, 2003
    10
    I realize this isn't a forum, but seriously... "Worse, everything here is a rudimentary sword/sorcery cliche" Tolkien was one of the first fantasy writers and they weren't cliches when he wrote them... but Peter Jackson's done a great job adapting and this is one of the best movies ever made, I think.
  60. JonasM.
    Dec 15, 2003
    10
    A true masterpiece!
  61. ElendilA.
    Dec 12, 2003
    10
    Wonderful!!!!!
  62. 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?
  63. ChadG.
    Dec 10, 2003
    10
    A masterpiece. The second best film of the trilogy after the miracle that is ROTK.
  64. Starfox
    Dec 10, 2003
    10
    Quite simply one of the greatest films ever made. Slightly better than part two. Now bring on number three!
  65. JohnnyBlaze
    Nov 29, 2003
    10
    This is a marvel in modern moviemaking. Anyone who couldn't find this movie entertaing needs to develop a little something called IMAGINATION!!!!! No story?? Give me a break, there is a reason that these stories are some of the most famous, and best-selling books of all-time. Peter Jackson has done more than an admirable job of bringing the story to the big screen , and these movies This is a marvel in modern moviemaking. Anyone who couldn't find this movie entertaing needs to develop a little something called IMAGINATION!!!!! No story?? Give me a break, there is a reason that these stories are some of the most famous, and best-selling books of all-time. Peter Jackson has done more than an admirable job of bringing the story to the big screen , and these movies will go down in histroy as cinema classics. Enough said!!! Expand
  66. Corey
    Nov 28, 2003
    10
    If there ever was a movie that i would marry this would be it. I love this movie. The greatest movie ever made. Overwhelming!! Awe inspiring!!! mocostrulating!!! hapervestulating!!! I'm making up words because there are none that exist that can describe this movie.
  67. JazG.
    Oct 25, 2003
    10
    An incredible achievement in filmmaking.
  68. BengerH.
    Oct 1, 2003
    10
    What can i say about the lord of the rings, everything! It had action, comedy, suspence, and more. Peter Jackson made a great novel an even better. Elijah Wood, Orlando bloom, and more made the move great with their talents. This movie we make u belif that it is true becase of the plot, setting, and the great battle scenes. I've watched this movie atleast 30 times and it is still What can i say about the lord of the rings, everything! It had action, comedy, suspence, and more. Peter Jackson made a great novel an even better. Elijah Wood, Orlando bloom, and more made the move great with their talents. This movie we make u belif that it is true becase of the plot, setting, and the great battle scenes. I've watched this movie atleast 30 times and it is still exiting. IF u haven't seen this movie, then u have not lived. See the movie all ur friends r talking about and see the two suspensful sequels!!! Expand
  69. YoonMinC.
    Sep 26, 2003
    4
    Maybe the book is a literary classic but I suspect this movie left out everything except the violence. Worse, everything here is a rudimentary sword/sorcery cliche, the special effects are murky, and the characters only frown, growl, or sweat. The pointyeared archer is handsome and dashing, and there are a couple of impressive images, but overall you're better off playing with your Maybe the book is a literary classic but I suspect this movie left out everything except the violence. Worse, everything here is a rudimentary sword/sorcery cliche, the special effects are murky, and the characters only frown, growl, or sweat. The pointyeared archer is handsome and dashing, and there are a couple of impressive images, but overall you're better off playing with your Playstation instead. Collapse
  70. KeithE.
    Sep 20, 2003
    10
    The first installment of the classic series the Lord Of The Rings was cinematically beautiful and awe inspiring. The battle scenes were very enjoyable. The creatures of Tolkien's world were well portrayed and believable. I would have chosen someone other than Elijah Wood to portray Froto, but Wood played his part well. Fabulous movie and left most viewers awaiting more.
  71. LivT.
    Sep 11, 2003
    10
    I think one word could describe this movie- BEAUTIFUL. Andrew J., I'm sorry you thought the movie was boring, but then again, why should anyone who hasn't seen this movie trust a reviewer who can't even spell "wasn't" right?
  72. MichaelR.
    Sep 8, 2003
    10
    Defines the fantasy genre. Possibly the best movie of this type ever made, and benefits from some careful pruning of Tolkien's overly long narrative by Jackson. One unavoidable drawback: my wife had a difficult time following, having never read the book.
  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. raVen
    Jul 19, 2003
    10
    Beautifully done--Tolkien was not betrayed. Abridged, yes, but never betrayed. Beyond the endless eyecandy, what I loved most was that it wasn't made specifically for the large segment of our population that would rather watch a movie than read the great book it was based on. "Fellowship" has action and swordplay, but doesn't depend on them. The characters are fantastical, but Beautifully done--Tolkien was not betrayed. Abridged, yes, but never betrayed. Beyond the endless eyecandy, what I loved most was that it wasn't made specifically for the large segment of our population that would rather watch a movie than read the great book it was based on. "Fellowship" has action and swordplay, but doesn't depend on them. The characters are fantastical, but not unreal. It's a special effects gem that isn't dumb. And this one's only the beginning... Expand
  75. Sammiv.
    Jun 24, 2003
    10
    This was a great movie. it has become one of my personal favorites!
  76. GaladrielL.
    Jun 13, 2003
    10
    Superb movie. Beautiful, moving, and fast-paced.
  77. NathanH.
    May 14, 2003
    10
    This is the best movie ever made, the only other movie that comes close to it is The Two Towers.
  78. PederD.
    May 2, 2003
    10
    Best movie ever!!!
  79. LindaL.
    Apr 30, 2003
    9
    Nearly perfect. This movie takes you into middle earth and leaves you begging for the next installment.
  80. JoelA.
    Apr 22, 2003
    9
    A great movie with Frodo and all.
  81. SamanthaH.
    Apr 13, 2003
    10
    All the peps worry cool and frodo wasthe coolest.
  82. FeliciaN.
    Mar 23, 2003
    10
    LOTR was a spectacular film. This movie is truly the best film ever made in my opinion. I'm still in awe of the characters and the effects were amazingly well done. I have to give this movie a bonus(11/10)Excellent! Masterpiece!
  83. TaylorJ.
    Mar 22, 2003
    9
    "The Fellowship of the Ring" is the best adaptation since "Gone With The Wind". It's a movie that crushes a bestselling novel into a timeframe that warns you of that Godzilla-sized soda: You WILL miss something. "Fellowship" has heart, action and above all, a magical story of good versus evil in which that even the smallest person can change the future. It's not perfect, but "The Fellowship of the Ring" is the best adaptation since "Gone With The Wind". It's a movie that crushes a bestselling novel into a timeframe that warns you of that Godzilla-sized soda: You WILL miss something. "Fellowship" has heart, action and above all, a magical story of good versus evil in which that even the smallest person can change the future. It's not perfect, but Peter Jackson has certainly accomplished something. Expand
  84. TommyL.
    Mar 21, 2003
    10
    One of those movies that just feels perfect from start to finish. I kind of know where people are coming from when they say that it was boring, but I thought every scene in the movie was perfectly executed.
  85. Stefi
    Feb 27, 2003
    9
    A great depiction of Tolkien's book. Good acting, imagery, and real emotion make the fantasy believable.
  86. GabbiR.
    Feb 19, 2003
    1
    Here's a summary of the whole movie: They walk, they fight, they walk, they fight, they walk, they fight, they walk, they fight, they walk it ends. Some movie. What really gets me was it was 3 hours long. This movie has torture written all over it.
  87. falcon88woods
    Feb 11, 2003
    10
    Loved it. Absolutly brilliant. exactly what I think Middle Earth is like!
  88. FOTRRox
    Feb 8, 2003
    10
    I think it's all right for a person to hate this movie, we can't force someone to like this movie. But, the thing is....ALL OF YOUR FREAKIN' SO-CALLED 'EVIDENCE' THAT 'SUPPORTS' YOUR OPINION! No story? If you think that, you either have bad ears, you think the most entertaining movies are the most boring, or you have VERY LOW intelligance. Some of the I think it's all right for a person to hate this movie, we can't force someone to like this movie. But, the thing is....ALL OF YOUR FREAKIN' SO-CALLED 'EVIDENCE' THAT 'SUPPORTS' YOUR OPINION! No story? If you think that, you either have bad ears, you think the most entertaining movies are the most boring, or you have VERY LOW intelligance. Some of the story was narrated in the beginning, you dork! No character development? You couldn't see how Frodo looked so happy (before the Ring was given to him) in the Shire, and all of a sudden his face was full of fear and worry when the Ring was given to him, and learned danger would soon be pursuing him? You didn't see this? Maybe you were looking, but you didn't look close enough, or gather up all the clues (EVERY SINGLE ONE) to lead to support your opinion well. I thought this movie was much more enchanting and magical than the second one which was cold, dirty, and polluted (even though it was supposed to be). The sceneries in this one are absolutely gorgeous. The movie even makes you feel like crying at the end. *sniffle* Way to go, FOTR makers! Expand
  89. TiffanyJ.
    Jan 7, 2003
    10
    This movie was by far the best movie i have EVER seen, and trust me, I have seen A LOT of movies. It pisses me off to see people not like it.. a lot of time, effort and money went into this movie. You dont like the movie eh? The why did it make over $100 million in the first 4 days? Obviously more people like it than don't. Lagolas is so freakin hot. Even if you didnt like the This movie was by far the best movie i have EVER seen, and trust me, I have seen A LOT of movies. It pisses me off to see people not like it.. a lot of time, effort and money went into this movie. You dont like the movie eh? The why did it make over $100 million in the first 4 days? Obviously more people like it than don't. Lagolas is so freakin hot. Even if you didnt like the movie.. you have to admit they did good on the cast! Expand
  90. Robert
    Jan 2, 2003
    10
    I'm not a huge fan of the series, but I have to say that this movie was amazing.
  91. PeterB.
    Dec 30, 2002
    2
    There was almost nothing interesting enough in this movie to hold my attention for 3 hours. I was anxcious for it to end. And then the last nail to the koffin. No ending! 3 hours and no story, no ending. There is nothing else left.
  92. 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?!?!
  93. SarahF.
    Dec 23, 2002
    10
    Legolas is hot. and this movie is awesome.
  94. FrodoFan
    Dec 19, 2002
    10
    When the movie came to theaters i didn't see it. I didn't really care that much. Then I rented it and when "Directed by Peter Jackson" came up on the scream after the 3 hour action packed fantasy movie ended, I let out a cry, turned to my sister and said "That was REALLY good!" It is my absolute favorite movie. And out of a 10 I would give it a 100. Whoever said the special When the movie came to theaters i didn't see it. I didn't really care that much. Then I rented it and when "Directed by Peter Jackson" came up on the scream after the 3 hour action packed fantasy movie ended, I let out a cry, turned to my sister and said "That was REALLY good!" It is my absolute favorite movie. And out of a 10 I would give it a 100. Whoever said the special effects were "laughable" needs help. I am desperate to see the Two Towers and whoever saids Peter Jackson chose a tasteless name needs help too. Frodo is such a relatable character. I liked Harry Potter the first time I saw the movie. But the second time I saw it I was thinking "Will this never end???" But with LOTR, I watched it every day for a week. I love it. I laugh and I cry. The special effects are awesome, it is never boring despite it's length, the characters are relatable, and it is an overall masterpiece! I can't wait to see the Two Towers and Return of the King!!! Expand
  95. Stick
    Dec 16, 2002
    9
    I rated this movie when it came out in theaters at only a 7. After seeing the extended version on DVD, I give it a 9. The extra footage helped capture more of the true story because it developed the characters more.
  96. ThaSilencer
    Dec 7, 2002
    10
    Hey Ned, before saying anything you really MUST make a movie from a book that is over a 1000 pages long and has tens of millions of fans. The goal is to make the movie in an incredibly short time with incredible effects, sound and all the other stuff. After that should you give this movie such a dumb rating. "acting was mediocre" umm, actually all the actors made an amazing job on their Hey Ned, before saying anything you really MUST make a movie from a book that is over a 1000 pages long and has tens of millions of fans. The goal is to make the movie in an incredibly short time with incredible effects, sound and all the other stuff. After that should you give this movie such a dumb rating. "acting was mediocre" umm, actually all the actors made an amazing job on their characters. the only fact they might seem dull is because there are 9 main characters plus lots of others. I think that even with those 9 characters Jackson made a really good job on describing them. "immature fantasy" - boy aren't you mature. most of things on our lives are really simple, why should we make fuss about that. if you have'nt read the books i suggest you do as well before judging this movie. as you will see it is just an ecranization of the book. the story behind all that is much more complex. It is just like any other thing in this world - looks simple at first but with little more attention put into it, a lot more things come up. Also about six-year-olds: did you tell anything like that to your babysitter at that age? did your story make your babysitter image that rich and beautiful world you were talking about? Battle scenes in this movie are really cool. I went to the premiere and 11 more times after that, and each time when Aragorn finished fighting with an orc the studio was applauding. All the battles in this movie are just as good as those in Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, etc... From the depths of my soul I scream NED DOES NOT WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!! Expand
  97. IanW.
    Dec 4, 2002
    10
    They have somehow managed the seemingly impossible, they have improved upon the book!! (removed scenes that would not work on film and added extra "continuity"). WONDERFUL!!!
  98. JeniK.
    Dec 4, 2002
    10
    To neone who keeps moaning that its a too long movie......if Jackson had made all three in one go and released all three movies as one...ud just be moaning that it was longer and suggest they split it into 3 movies. i thought the movie wa brilliant, gr8 choice of characters adn brilliant script, sound effects and special effects. if u havent seen it see it......12 out of ten if poss!!!
  99. Realone
    Dec 4, 2002
    10
    It's a very special movie. The movie is very good.
  100. FMAVoltaire
    Nov 29, 2002
    10
    Rating movies is a subjective thing, but only to a point. Anybody who rates this movie lower than 7 is simply seeking attention, and should not be taken seriously. Sort of like the guy who walks into a museum, looks at a Van Gogh, and says "my kid could do that with finger paints." Whatever. If you get your jollies by bashing a movie that 90+ percent of the population thinks is something Rating movies is a subjective thing, but only to a point. Anybody who rates this movie lower than 7 is simply seeking attention, and should not be taken seriously. Sort of like the guy who walks into a museum, looks at a Van Gogh, and says "my kid could do that with finger paints." Whatever. If you get your jollies by bashing a movie that 90+ percent of the population thinks is something close to a cinematic masterpiece, then you're a bit demented, don't you think? Expand
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.