User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1526 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. S.J.
    Nov 21, 2002
    10
    I just dare Ned to create an entire world only from his own imagination, to developes races, languages, places.. then to write it in a book, to write other books with stories of these stuffs, then I dare him to make a movie of these books in less than 2 years. If he can, then I'll consider his meaningless rate. I would like to see a "six-year-old" doing the work Peter Jackson did. I just dare Ned to create an entire world only from his own imagination, to developes races, languages, places.. then to write it in a book, to write other books with stories of these stuffs, then I dare him to make a movie of these books in less than 2 years. If he can, then I'll consider his meaningless rate. I would like to see a "six-year-old" doing the work Peter Jackson did. Rating this movie beneath 6 shouldn't be allowed for this movie. I just NEVER seen a movie with such a perfect casting, with incredible music and ambiance, and with such landscape. It just drops the new star wars way behind. Expand
  2. PaulM.
    Nov 22, 2002
    10
    Deserves ever score of 10 and nothing less. On September 11th, 2001, the world changed forever. No longer did I feel the comfort of a safe country, a safe home. Nothing mattered any more except for the strength, support, and love of friends. And that is what the Lord of the Rings is about. It is a story of the human spirit told through the struggle to ward off a foe unseen. It has very Deserves ever score of 10 and nothing less. On September 11th, 2001, the world changed forever. No longer did I feel the comfort of a safe country, a safe home. Nothing mattered any more except for the strength, support, and love of friends. And that is what the Lord of the Rings is about. It is a story of the human spirit told through the struggle to ward off a foe unseen. It has very deep values and morals throughout, with very powerful messages. The message that even using a dark power with good intentions, that power can and will corrupt. This is also the story of friendship, faithfulness, and forgiveness. In the bonds between the characters, and the struggles of the characters, they ask each others forgiveness, and apologize to one another when they fail. This film spoke volumes to me with many underlying themes such as those. Beyond that, the experience of the film was such that I have never seen before. What I saw wasn't perfect, but the flaws are forgiveable. The length isn't a problem, because they were able to capture more of the book and I'm thankful for that. For a long time I wondered how audiences felt seeing the original Star Wars and changing the world of film, as I was born the year that the Empire Struck Back, and I believe that I have just witnessed just such an event, and felt those emotions. This picture had an effect on me and I loved the whole thing. Expand
  3. ArwenII
    Nov 26, 2002
    10
    One of the best movies I've ever seen. But there's one thing I don't get. First, this movie was at a 95, then it was lowered down to a 94, and it's a 93? Personally, I think someone hacked into this website and was so mad that this movie was too good to have a rating, that they decided to lower its score. I get a lump in my throat just thinking about this movie. It had One of the best movies I've ever seen. But there's one thing I don't get. First, this movie was at a 95, then it was lowered down to a 94, and it's a 93? Personally, I think someone hacked into this website and was so mad that this movie was too good to have a rating, that they decided to lower its score. I get a lump in my throat just thinking about this movie. It had some very emotional moments that made me sob all night. Fantasy is so great. It's too bad that some people just don't appreciate such great imaginations that some brilliant authors (such as J.R.R Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, and Jules Verne) have. Expand
  4. DavisL.
    Nov 27, 2002
    10
    It's a great film alright. But it's got sod all to do with September the bloody 11th.
  5. TonyR.
    Jan 13, 2002
    1
    Wow... This movie was boring. Not since the Bridges of Madison County have I felt the urge to sleep at the theater. The obnoxiously overbearing musical score prevented that. This movie is simply uninteresting. It is no better than professional wrestling... with swords and arrows. The long, slow shots scream for us to adore the characters, not one of whom I cared about. I ceased my court Wow... This movie was boring. Not since the Bridges of Madison County have I felt the urge to sleep at the theater. The obnoxiously overbearing musical score prevented that. This movie is simply uninteresting. It is no better than professional wrestling... with swords and arrows. The long, slow shots scream for us to adore the characters, not one of whom I cared about. I ceased my court at 52 close-ups of characters eyes. (And it was early in the movie.) This movie starts out not so great and goes downhill from there. The only reasons this movie is rated a 1 rather than a 0 are Ian McKellen and Cate Blanchett. They are terrific actors, of course, and do better than any of their comrades in LOTR at giving some genuine feeling to the stale drivil. Expand
  6. RobertH.
    Jan 13, 2002
    3
    I fail to see what all the hoopla is about? Perhaps I am missing something, but I felt nothing for the characters as they were not developed. The movie was too long and dragged in certain parts. If you like fights against unbelievable odds you are in luck. It was the same action scene repeated three times over and over and without any ending even though it is predictable. I'll pass I fail to see what all the hoopla is about? Perhaps I am missing something, but I felt nothing for the characters as they were not developed. The movie was too long and dragged in certain parts. If you like fights against unbelievable odds you are in luck. It was the same action scene repeated three times over and over and without any ending even though it is predictable. I'll pass on the next two sequels. Expand
  7. WarrenD.
    Jan 2, 2002
    10
    Quite simply one of the two or three best fantasy films ever made and one of the best novel to film transitions ever! It restores a genuine sense of WOW to the cinema. What an achievement for all concerned.
  8. EricH.
    Jan 20, 2002
    10
    Fellowship Of The Ring isn't so much an adaptation as it builds and fleshes out the gray areas of the book. Peter Jackson has outdone himself - visually the movie is stunning, the details warrant repeated viewings, and the dialogue and flow goes over 3 hours without one moment of boredom.
  9. 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?!?!
  10. DonO.
    Jan 23, 2002
    10
    Editor, I loved "Stars Wars," but I loved Fellowship of the Ring even more. I haven't read the Rings books in 30 years, but this film was so filled with such operatic beauty, such exquisite characters and such courage in the face of outrageous peril that it's now my number-one movie of all time. Star Wars was great ? humorous, slap-dash and filled with amazing special effects, Editor, I loved "Stars Wars," but I loved Fellowship of the Ring even more. I haven't read the Rings books in 30 years, but this film was so filled with such operatic beauty, such exquisite characters and such courage in the face of outrageous peril that it's now my number-one movie of all time. Star Wars was great ? humorous, slap-dash and filled with amazing special effects, but it was, to be honest, only the world's best Saturday afternoon matinee. As serious film, it doesn't even come close to the Fellowship of the Ring. Expand
  11. 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!!!
  12. 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!!!
  13. SylvainG.
    Jan 27, 2002
    10
    Fellowship is a really great movie, that is both grand scale action and intimate moments of friendship and love. Against all odds, Jackson has succeeded in bringing a masterpiece to life!
  14. 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
  15. June
    Jan 28, 2002
    10
    WOW... the best movie ever! The Hobbits are just the best in the whole movie! I am really looking forward to the next two videos:)
  16. DanielleG.
    Jan 31, 2002
    10
    I can't see how anyone could NOT have liked this. It was brilliantly coordinated and the special effects were done so beautifully. The cast is perfect. Orlando Bloom is absolute eye candy (but that?s not the only thing that makes this movie good). Just go see it, what else is there to say? I'm buying the DVD and seeing the next 2!
  17. RowanA.
    Jan 30, 2002
    10
    Great!!!
  18. MikeyG.
    Oct 3, 2002
    7
    Ok, I had to add in my two cents. Obviously everyone that added a review is a Tolkien fan. To those of us that have never read the books: The movie does not end!!! All the movie consists of is a series of self-contained action sequences which barely move the plot along. Granted, the plot is simply this: Take the ring to be destroyed. Have adventures along the way. That's pretty much Ok, I had to add in my two cents. Obviously everyone that added a review is a Tolkien fan. To those of us that have never read the books: The movie does not end!!! All the movie consists of is a series of self-contained action sequences which barely move the plot along. Granted, the plot is simply this: Take the ring to be destroyed. Have adventures along the way. That's pretty much it. I do give this movie a good rating (7) because it is well done and visually stunning. The characters are likable enough, too. However, no nudity, no sex, and NO FRIGGEN' ENDING do not make this a 10. I'm sorry, Tolkien freaks. Expand
  19. KarlD.
    Jan 4, 2002
    10
    I have to give a 10+++ (as I watched it already 3 times) for the movie I was expecting for months. I truly remained without breath fot the whole 3 hours and enjoyed every second of it. The myth of the great mind of J.R.R. Tolkien finally came to life with this truly remarkable masterpiece of filmaking. I have never seen such good visuals in my life, and after I have read the books of the I have to give a 10+++ (as I watched it already 3 times) for the movie I was expecting for months. I truly remained without breath fot the whole 3 hours and enjoyed every second of it. The myth of the great mind of J.R.R. Tolkien finally came to life with this truly remarkable masterpiece of filmaking. I have never seen such good visuals in my life, and after I have read the books of the Lord of the Rings, I realised how well the whole book was recreated superbly on screen. The scenery is truly spectecular and breathtaking, compliments to Peter Jackson's New Zealand and his great talent. The soundtrack is also marvellous. I hope this film will be rewarded for its greatness. It is a great epic of fantasy and adventure, and without any doubt, one of the or the best film of the year. I do not mind people critsicing harshly the film because I do believe they don't know a damn about the books of Tolkien. Please don't try to compare it to Star Wars, maybe it was written 40 years later!! The Fellowship of the Ring is a dream come true thanks to Tolkien's genius and Peter Jackson's talent. Flawless! Can't wait a year and two to see the other movies, then I guess I have to put myself on dvds! Expand
  20. WillR.
    Jan 4, 2002
    2
    What is all the hoopla about? If you wasted your childhood playing Dungeons & Dragons, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother. The movie does have tremendous special effects and fantastic scenery, some of the best you'll ever see. However, for the most part, this is an incredibly boring film which basically breaks down to a bunch of ho-hum battles with evil creatures What is all the hoopla about? If you wasted your childhood playing Dungeons & Dragons, this movie is for you. Otherwise, don't bother. The movie does have tremendous special effects and fantastic scenery, some of the best you'll ever see. However, for the most part, this is an incredibly boring film which basically breaks down to a bunch of ho-hum battles with evil creatures (typical plot sequence: guy stabs evil creature with sword, followed by guy shoots evil creature with arrow, etc.). The plot is extremely simple and leads absolutely nowhere, the dialogue is complete drivel, and the characters are one dimensional (at best). If the movie was an hour or two long, it might have been tolerable, but at three hours, it's virtually unbearable, unless your idea of a good time is watching paint dry. Expand
  21. BobB.
    Feb 19, 2002
    1
    Weak on every level. No character development at all. Just three hours of cgi and dull dialogue. I'll pass on the sequel.
  22. Carol-AnnC.
    Feb 23, 2002
    0
    Absolutely one of the most overrated pieces of drek that I have ever seen. I couldn't care less about the characters as they are devoid of any feeling or chemistry. Lord, please help us if this is what Hollywood calls Oscar material!
  23. ValH.
    Feb 9, 2002
    10
    This movie was awsome. They special effects and photography are excellent. I have seen the movie 5 times and I can't wait till it comes to DVD. I also can't wait for the sequels. Ian McKellen gave an extraordinary preformance as Gandalf the Grey and Elijah Wood protrade Frodo Baggins astoundingly. They coundn't have found anyone better. Lord of The Rings rules!!
  24. MichaelM.
    Mar 10, 2002
    9
    This movie is terrific! I've never been one for Tolkien, but the movie is outstanding. I've gone back to see it five times.
  25. MikeV.
    Mar 14, 2002
    10
    One of the greatest movies ever made.
  26. LisaW.
    Mar 27, 2002
    10
    I think Peter Jackson did a wonderful job with the movie. It was definitely the best movie I have ever seen.
  27. NickiT.
    Mar 30, 2002
    10
    I loved it, I'd give it an 11 out of 10 if it were possible.
  28. KeithW.
    Mar 31, 2002
    10
    Brilliant!!
  29. Enkil
    Mar 7, 2002
    10
    Just brilliant. A perfect start for this long awaited trilogy. And I have heard that people complain about "no real ending". Well, just take a look on the world's most popular trilogy Star Wars. Does the first and second have a "real" ending? Nooo...
  30. SuzyQ.
    Mar 7, 2002
    10
    Awesome, awesome, awesome!
  31. Will
    Apr 1, 2002
    9
    I'm only not giving this film a "10" because there were still a few iddy-biddy gripes I had with it. HOWEVER, Lord of the Rings was ROBBED of Best Picture by an ever-increasingly geriatric Academy. Yes, I would have cast Saruman differently (he's supposed to look like a trustworthy guy), and I would have had Sean Bean (Boromir) aim for a higher degree of dynamics... but Peter I'm only not giving this film a "10" because there were still a few iddy-biddy gripes I had with it. HOWEVER, Lord of the Rings was ROBBED of Best Picture by an ever-increasingly geriatric Academy. Yes, I would have cast Saruman differently (he's supposed to look like a trustworthy guy), and I would have had Sean Bean (Boromir) aim for a higher degree of dynamics... but Peter Jackson couldn't've done much better than he did. This is in the 'must-see' column. Expand
  32. JaydebM.
    Apr 1, 2002
    10
    As good an adaptation from book to film as it can get.
  33. Jonas
    Apr 21, 2002
    10
    Same as the other...Two words Olando Bloom.
  34. JohnS.
    Apr 22, 2002
    10
    This movie was great.
  35. JessicaS.
    Apr 27, 2002
    10
    Beautiful film:) imagination actually seems real in Lord Of the Rings. Thank you for an amazing experience, and its only begun!
  36. KaraL.
    Apr 7, 2002
    10
    The scenery was beautiful, the acting was mostly wonderful, and it leaves you wanting more.
  37. Ann-MarieB.
    May 1, 2002
    10
    This is my absolute favorite movie! It deserves a 20/10! Elijah Wood is the best! Whoever gave it a low rating is crazy!!!!
  38. KeshiaB.
    May 15, 2002
    10
    What can I say it was absolutely amazine! I can't wait 2 C the next 2.
  39. RoddickB.
    May 18, 2002
    10
    The most magnificent and best high-fantasy film of all time. Not really THE BEST film of all time, but one of the best, and definitely the LORD of its genre. Breathtaking visuals and cinematography, stunning sets and landscapes, beautiful score, flawless acting, I can't wait for the next two films!
  40. ArwenElvenprincess
    Jun 13, 2002
    10
    This is the most beautiful movie i have ever seen. I can't wait for the next one.
  41. JBW.
    Jun 15, 2002
    10
    Its in my top 3 favorite movies and i think whoever doesnt like it is an idiot!!!!!!! I've read all the books and they are great!I can't wait to see The Two Towers and The Return of the King.
  42. Dr.EdB.
    Jun 16, 2002
    2
    With all the controversy surrounding this movie I decided to watch this children's story for myself. As a professor at a large university I was interested to learn the reason for the wide ranging opinions. With apologies to JW I too found this movie very overrated. The cinematography was breathtaking but the character development was poor. Unless one is an avid reader of With all the controversy surrounding this movie I decided to watch this children's story for myself. As a professor at a large university I was interested to learn the reason for the wide ranging opinions. With apologies to JW I too found this movie very overrated. The cinematography was breathtaking but the character development was poor. Unless one is an avid reader of children's books the average theatergoer would have a difficult time as there is very little insight into the characters. That is the flaw in the making of this movie. It does not translate well from the book. JW enjoy the rest of the trilogy as I will read your review. Sorry, I too did not appreciate nor enjoy LOR. Expand
  43. StineE.
    Jun 2, 2002
    10
    I've read the book, and the movie was even better than I expected!!!!!
  44. MarcE.
    Jun 23, 2002
    5
    You've seen the movie. Now buy the video game!
  45. LauraW.
    Jun 24, 2002
    10
    It iz the best film i have eva seen in my whole life and i can't wait 4 the nxt! the scenery iz amazing and every word iz true 2 tolkiens epic book.
  46. AndrewS.
    Jun 27, 2002
    10
    There is no question about this being the absolute best movie of all time. It succeeds in everything it does. I admit that seeing the movie before I read book was a mistake, but it didn't stop me from loving this movie! I saw it again after the read and the book, I had a new respect for it. The movie is visually mind-blowing, the acting is the best I've seen in any movie, the There is no question about this being the absolute best movie of all time. It succeeds in everything it does. I admit that seeing the movie before I read book was a mistake, but it didn't stop me from loving this movie! I saw it again after the read and the book, I had a new respect for it. The movie is visually mind-blowing, the acting is the best I've seen in any movie, the story soars above any other, and the movie itself just rocks! It was robbed blind at the Oscars. It should have won everything it was nominated for. The Academy doesn't know what the hell they're doing. What does a movie have to do to get recognized? For crying out loud! The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is (needless to say) unbeatable! Expand
  47. JohnG.
    Jun 3, 2002
    10
    Amazing....everything about LOTR was amazing and unforgetable....it was so deep and in depth....it was not boring for a second....in all of the 3 hours.
  48. RochelleR.
    Jul 11, 2002
    10
    People. People. People. The show was magnificiant and those who give it lower than a 7 say it was the crummiest? You definitely haven't watched the movie, you guys just probably read some what critics say and copy them just to make yourself look proffesional! The movie did have some character developement in it, the point of the whole story is about fighting and war so you have to People. People. People. The show was magnificiant and those who give it lower than a 7 say it was the crummiest? You definitely haven't watched the movie, you guys just probably read some what critics say and copy them just to make yourself look proffesional! The movie did have some character developement in it, the point of the whole story is about fighting and war so you have to keep the battle scenes and if you ask why it didn't even have an ending... I suggest you read the book! Expand
  49. JasonD.
    Jul 10, 2002
    10
    The reason that movies are made in the first place! I would have sat another three hours. One of the few blockbusters where the CGI effects are used to enhance the story, rather than become the thrust of the story.
  50. JohnnyP.
    Jul 17, 2002
    9
    I'm sick of everyone whining about a lack of character development. Tolkien's stories were always sweeping epics (the Silmarillion crosses the line into myth), not character studies. If they wanted to be even truer to the books they could have included some folk songs. Wouldn't that have pissed people off even more. If you were expecting piercing insight into Frodo's I'm sick of everyone whining about a lack of character development. Tolkien's stories were always sweeping epics (the Silmarillion crosses the line into myth), not character studies. If they wanted to be even truer to the books they could have included some folk songs. Wouldn't that have pissed people off even more. If you were expecting piercing insight into Frodo's existential sense of dread, you were expecting a different movie and I think that accounts for most of the low ratings. Speaking of which, I've never seen the viewer ratings polarized to this extent - all 10's or 0's. Expand
  51. Dilmano
    Jul 8, 2002
    10
    I'm a bit confused with some of the criticism of this movie..."the same scene over and over again..." That line is repeated in several reviews. Huh? Which scene was that? It appears that this is just the same movie review, over and over again. And our old friend "character development" gets trotted out as another example of the shortcomings of this film. Folks, give it a chance. As I'm a bit confused with some of the criticism of this movie..."the same scene over and over again..." That line is repeated in several reviews. Huh? Which scene was that? It appears that this is just the same movie review, over and over again. And our old friend "character development" gets trotted out as another example of the shortcomings of this film. Folks, give it a chance. As someone earlier mentioned, it's a trilogy. I could already see changes at work in several characters in just the first film. And sometimes, even in the most respected films, characters DON'T develop or change. They just are what they are, and here's their story. Don't mistake plot development for character development. I had no desire to see this film when it came out. I'd tried to read the books way back when I was in college, but just couldn't get into them (I've never been much of a Fantasy fan). My husband, however, is a major LOTR fan, and convinced me to go. I've seen it 4 times since then, and can't wait for the DVD and the new installment in December. Now, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not a child, nor do I have the intellect of one, and yet I found the film exciting, funny, moving, thought-provoking, and just plain FUN. (And so did my husband, the big LOTR fan.) I cared about the characters and found them compelling. And I had no problem with the ending. Of course, different strokes for different folks! Expand
  52. Cassidy
    Aug 14, 2002
    10
    This is the best movie in the world!! it has everything u could ask for...it is by far the best!
  53. Me
    Aug 20, 2002
    10
    To those 2 guys who say it sux. r u guys out of ur mind!? peter jackson did a wonderful job on packing a 300-page book into 3 hours, tho it could have been 4-5 hours cuz of all those additional details and characters that were not in the movie. the names of characters were made by tolkien and plz, its a fantasy world, they shouldn't be called american names. i'm happy it got asTo those 2 guys who say it sux. r u guys out of ur mind!? peter jackson did a wonderful job on packing a 300-page book into 3 hours, tho it could have been 4-5 hours cuz of all those additional details and characters that were not in the movie. the names of characters were made by tolkien and plz, its a fantasy world, they shouldn't be called american names. i'm happy it got as many awards as beautiful mind did. it's just too good! the week after the movie i read the whole trilogy and now i keep getting all the lord of the rings stuff, even dvd tho i don't have a dvd player. boy i can't wait for the next one!!!! Expand
  54. AndrewF.
    Aug 27, 2002
    7
    FOOLS! Each and every one of you half-brained meglomaniacs that gave this fill any score under 5. How can this movie be overhyped! It is us, the moviegoing public that created this travesty with most summer films. Shame on you for not seeing this film for what it is. I am not a LOTR fanatic, I have never read the books. Yet, I am still know passionate film making. If you can't stand FOOLS! Each and every one of you half-brained meglomaniacs that gave this fill any score under 5. How can this movie be overhyped! It is us, the moviegoing public that created this travesty with most summer films. Shame on you for not seeing this film for what it is. I am not a LOTR fanatic, I have never read the books. Yet, I am still know passionate film making. If you can't stand the "hoopla" go see the movie opening weekend and shut the hell up. It will never stop. We are all damned to suffer together. Expand
  55. HobbitQueen
    Aug 8, 2002
    10
    I fully disagree with "Poopinski", yes her/his name speaks for it self obviously. The 2nd DVD was beyond expectations and was incredible. The film itself made me an obessed LOTR fan. Especially FOTR...the books are also amazing. Peter Jackson couldn't have done better except maybe did not edit out the extra 30 min. which is only available on the extended version. Lord of the Rings I fully disagree with "Poopinski", yes her/his name speaks for it self obviously. The 2nd DVD was beyond expectations and was incredible. The film itself made me an obessed LOTR fan. Especially FOTR...the books are also amazing. Peter Jackson couldn't have done better except maybe did not edit out the extra 30 min. which is only available on the extended version. Lord of the Rings totally rock. Expand
  56. Nicole
    Aug 8, 2002
    1
    To everyone who thought this was a good movie I have to ask ,"What were you thinking!" This was the worst movie i've ever seen. It was way too over hyped. Half way through the movie I was wondering why I hadn't brought more candy. At least that would have gotten me through the agony. I had a better time watching Queen of the Damned. Thank god A Beautiful Mind won. It was so much better.
  57. JamesF.
    Aug 8, 2002
    10
    Don't mean to be a bandwagon jumper, but his movie is excellent. I, for one, love fantasy films, and this has got to be the greatest of that genre ever made. However, the great thing is youi don't have to eb a fantasy film lover to ike this movie. It's like star wars only fantasy (except I didn't really care for star wars), its a film that anybody of any age can enjoy Don't mean to be a bandwagon jumper, but his movie is excellent. I, for one, love fantasy films, and this has got to be the greatest of that genre ever made. However, the great thing is youi don't have to eb a fantasy film lover to ike this movie. It's like star wars only fantasy (except I didn't really care for star wars), its a film that anybody of any age can enjoy so long as they have imagination and don't mind a long, epic movie. Expand
  58. MartyH.
    Sep 1, 2002
    10
    This movie is part one of the best book in the world. J.R.R. Tolkien is the most influential man in all of the fantasy genre. Without his book there would be no beauty in my life. This is because the Lord of the Rings is beautiful in itself. Nicole, whoever you are you can burn in eternal hellfire because of what you have said about the movie, the book and anything pertaining to the best This movie is part one of the best book in the world. J.R.R. Tolkien is the most influential man in all of the fantasy genre. Without his book there would be no beauty in my life. This is because the Lord of the Rings is beautiful in itself. Nicole, whoever you are you can burn in eternal hellfire because of what you have said about the movie, the book and anything pertaining to the best book of all time. I hope your family will realize the error in your ways and abandon you. Next time you have something to say about Lord of the Rings just keep it in your prissy stuckup snobby mouth. Queen of the Damned is nothing compared to the awesome work of poetry that is the Lord of the Rings. If I were able to make my vote above ten I would give the Lord of the Rings over 1 billion, because that is the amount that it has already made in theaters worldwide. Can you tell me how much Queen of the Damned got? Guess what there are also two more movies coming out. Can you say highest grossing trilogy of all time (Even surpassing Star Wars)? You probably don't like Star Wars either ... And don't think for a minute that I like Harry Potter because that is crap, just like you. J.R.R. Tolkien lives on in his books which are the embodiment of all that is right and just and good in the world. Thank you. Expand
  59. MichaelK.
    Sep 14, 2002
    10
    "There are those who live, Frodo, who do not deserve to. There are those who die, that do not deserve to. It is what we do with the time we have that makes the difference." Gandalf. The movie captures the essence of the book in a very genuine way. So much is left out, but what is left in follows the story right to the heart of it. It is really the story of Frodo and Sam. It is the ageless "There are those who live, Frodo, who do not deserve to. There are those who die, that do not deserve to. It is what we do with the time we have that makes the difference." Gandalf. The movie captures the essence of the book in a very genuine way. So much is left out, but what is left in follows the story right to the heart of it. It is really the story of Frodo and Sam. It is the ageless story of the fight between good and evil. It is the story of a loving friendship that prevails against all odds. It is the story of winning, against all odds. It is only a story, but then, isn't all life just a story. If I had the chance to be in the story of Frodo, and the ring, I would pledge to him my sword. Stories are just a thing of the mind. So is life. Michael. Expand
  60. SeanS.
    Sep 2, 2002
    2
    One of the worst movies I've seen all year. This crap is soooo overrated. I really can't understand how anyone could possibly enjoy this movie. When I was watching it I couldn't wait for it to end.
  61. ElizabethF.
    Sep 28, 2002
    10
    The beauty of this film is that it appeals to those who have read The Lord of the Rings as well as those who haven't. Newcomers (most of them) are intrigued by portrayal of the characters and storyline, whereas the old are captured once again by Tolkien's epic. The acting cannot be faulted; it was convincing. And Peter Jackson did well in choosing the parts of the story to cut The beauty of this film is that it appeals to those who have read The Lord of the Rings as well as those who haven't. Newcomers (most of them) are intrigued by portrayal of the characters and storyline, whereas the old are captured once again by Tolkien's epic. The acting cannot be faulted; it was convincing. And Peter Jackson did well in choosing the parts of the story to cut out. Of course, no movie is complete without a good accompanying score, and Howard Shore was truly magical. It was not about character development. In fact, in the books, there was very little until later, much later in the story. It should be more that enough that the characters were stunningly portrayed and cunningly acted out. Take, for instance, Frodo Baggins. At bag end, he is happy. And why shouldn't he be? His life is perfect. He is rich and well-liked in the community. When his beloved uncle disappears, he is sad - but not overly so, because he respects Bilbo. But Elijah Wood conveys his misery perfectly when the truth of the ring is revealed, and his acceptance of his task. His desperate flee from the Ringwraiths, his fear, and the doom that he brings upon him at the council - all clearly seen through the smallest of actions and speech. Then the journey through the mines, "a pity Bilbo didn't kill [Gollum] when he had the chance," the revelations in Lórien, "I cannot do this alone," and the exceptional courage in Amon Hen, "can you protect me from yourself?" serve to make Frodo Baggins a formidable character in the movie of the year. But I am surprised at some of the comments posted here. One person complains that it was too violent for children. I don't mean to sound insulting, but this person has obviously never read the books. A child would never grasp the concepts in The Lord of the Rings. Of course, if the original reviewer was a child prodigy with an I.Q. of 180 and attended Oxford for literature at age 15, forgive me. For the comment about the two "annoying short guys," those short guys are HOBBITS, and they are the main characters in the story. To the person who called it "a nerdy movie for nerdy people... that [run] around outside pretending to cast spells on each other," I am sorry that some of us have a desire for good literature. As for the comments about length... try reading it. And the one review to cap them all: "Sean R. gave it a 5: This is one of those movies where you need to expect an 500 page story crammed not action. The action weren't that good and the demon characters looked really cheesy. The plot also really didn't make a whole lot of sense either. The thing I will never get over though are the names Frodo, Bilbo. Did Mike Tyson name these guys?" It is pitiable. Especially the last two sentences. Kudos to you, Peter Jackson and co. The Fellowship of the Ring is truly a magnificent movie, and certainly does the book justice. Expand
  62. 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
  63. 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?
  64. 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
  65. Stefi
    Feb 27, 2003
    9
    A great depiction of Tolkien's book. Good acting, imagery, and real emotion make the fantasy believable.
  66. 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
  67. SamanthaH.
    Apr 13, 2003
    10
    All the peps worry cool and frodo wasthe coolest.
  68. LindaL.
    Apr 30, 2003
    9
    Nearly perfect. This movie takes you into middle earth and leaves you begging for the next installment.
  69. 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
  70. 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?
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. CameronS.
    Mar 31, 2004
    9
    This movie was a classic. peter jackson has taken a book and turned it into a masterpiece!
  78. 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
  79. JaneA.
    Aug 8, 2004
    10
    I love the Lord of the Rings films (and books). See the extended editions.
  80. 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.
  81. Leo
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Amazing Film.
  82. Mike
    Feb 6, 2005
    5
    I was sooo disappointed by this movie!!!
  83. 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
  84. BeccaP.
    Aug 3, 2005
    10
    Great movie!
  85. LisaG.
    Sep 12, 2005
    10
    Wonderful, just wonderful.... even 4 years later.
  86. 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
  87. 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.
  88. 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'.
  89. [Anonymous]
    Dec 19, 2001
    9
    The spirit is alive in this movie. Would I have done a few things differently, yes. Was it possible to get the entire book into a movie in under 3 hours, no. Most cuts were reasonable. The cast was appropriate (particularly the hobbits and Aragorn). In all, I loved it.
  90. DaveL.
    Dec 19, 2001
    9
    Had a few minor annoyances, but had the same annoyances with the novels. But in most ways, it's absolutely tremendous, and certainly deserves Best Picture consideration. And as visual spectacle, it's astounding.
  91. JustinM.
    Dec 19, 2001
    10
    So far, this is the only movie I can honestly say has overstepped the bounds of it's hype. What fantasy film could be better than the very series that started it all? Recipe: Take four hobbits, a wizard, elf, king of men, and dwarf. Cast well. Act to golden perfection and add props and special effects to taste. Jackson did all that and more, and cooked up nothing short of a timeless So far, this is the only movie I can honestly say has overstepped the bounds of it's hype. What fantasy film could be better than the very series that started it all? Recipe: Take four hobbits, a wizard, elf, king of men, and dwarf. Cast well. Act to golden perfection and add props and special effects to taste. Jackson did all that and more, and cooked up nothing short of a timeless masterpiece! Long-live such moviemaking! Expand
  92. FayeG.
    Dec 19, 2001
    10
    I LOVED IT!!!!!!
  93. TaylorS.
    Dec 20, 2001
    6
    Wonderful cinamatography, special effects, sets. everything visual is amazing. as is all the acting. but they killed the story. just completely dropped so many things that tolkien empahsized. it would be wonderful if they hadn't called it lord of the rings.
  94. IanM.
    Dec 22, 2001
    10
    Possibly the best movie I have ever seen. The sense of magic combined with the powers and subtle differences depicted in each of the many races within the world conjured from the genius of Tolkien is phenomenal. Graphically, technically and emotionally stunning. See it.
  95. MarkM.
    Dec 22, 2001
    9
    A true masterpiece of epic film-making. I was swept away by this film from the very start. Whether it be the intimately emotional character development of the hobbit characters or the sweeping vistas of Middle-Earth (via New Zealand), this film is one of the most breathtaking I've seen since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It easily trumps any and every other fantasy film from A true masterpiece of epic film-making. I was swept away by this film from the very start. Whether it be the intimately emotional character development of the hobbit characters or the sweeping vistas of Middle-Earth (via New Zealand), this film is one of the most breathtaking I've seen since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It easily trumps any and every other fantasy film from Excalibur to Dungeons & Dragons and stands with its head held high among even such recent classics as Braveheart and Gladiator, beating out both with its charm and humanity as well as its stirring battle sequences and stunning visual FX. (Gollum is only briefly glimpsed in his 10 or 20 seconds onscreen but is easily 10x better in rendering than the any and all of Jar Jar's renderings in The Phantom Menace.) The emotional resonance of this film left me deeply moved at several points -- to the point of tears at two points -- and is touching in its portrayal of all the characters involved. In short, if you see only one film this holiday season, SEE THIS ONE. It will not disappoint. Expand
  96. RobertL.
    Dec 27, 2001
    7
    Good action film but lacks true emotional depth to be rated as a top film for adults.
  97. ChrisP.
    Dec 28, 2001
    9
    I haven't read the book yet (I've been... uh... busy) so with nothing to compare it to I think that this movie is amazing. I was kind of annoyed at the whole "comic-relief hobbits" deal but, if that's the whole point of hobbits, then maybe I should be giving the movie a 10. I don't think it is, so I won't.
  98. AlY.
    Dec 31, 2001
    9
    So good I can't help myself. I am reading the book again. Only small problems: moments of disconnect (who is Boromir, where did he come from, and why does he look so much like the other guy?), one or two small plot devices were added unnecessarily to keep the pace frantic (why did we need that thing from 20,000 leagues under the sea). Oh well. Bravo!
  99. PaulaW.
    Dec 30, 2001
    9
    Forget the fantasy clichés you've been snickering at: the flimsy plots, the names like Zrhkyn, the maidens in cleavage-enhancing breastplates. This is fantasy at its best, the way it was meant to be before the tacky airbrushed book and album covers of the 1970's gave it a bad name. Little Frodo Baggins races through a truly imaginative landscape fraught with magic and Forget the fantasy clichés you've been snickering at: the flimsy plots, the names like Zrhkyn, the maidens in cleavage-enhancing breastplates. This is fantasy at its best, the way it was meant to be before the tacky airbrushed book and album covers of the 1970's gave it a bad name. Little Frodo Baggins races through a truly imaginative landscape fraught with magic and peril to destroy a ring with dark powers before the evil Lord Sauron can get a hold of it, and grows up along the way. Elijah Wood does a good job with Frodo's transformation from young hayseed to warrior. Standouts also include Ian Holm as Bilbo and Ian McKellen as Gandalf, along with familiar faces like Hugo Weaving (from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) and Liv Tyler for a dash of female interest in an otherwise very boyish adventure. True, the plot is condensed, but in ways that make sense. The effects are very good, the scenery is gorgeous, and there is plenty of pulse-racing action. It's not all good looks either: every emotion seems sincere. Simply put, this epic beats the pants off anything ever dreamed up by George Lucas. If you never see another fantasy or sci-fi flick, you should see this one. Expand
  100. 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
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.