User Score
9.0

Universal acclaim- based on 1628 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. JanetS.
    Jun 14, 2002
    1
    What is all the hoopla about this movie. Simply terrible without any character development at all. If I saw one more fight scene with overwhelming odds I think I would be sick. What was a car doing in the background? Awful!
  2. Jul 8, 2014
    4
    סרט ממש משעמם, הדמות היחידה שמעניינת הכל הטרילוגיה הזו לא בדיוק נמצאת שם, ואין שום רגע אחד מרגש או מותח, אתם לא תתחברו לדמויות כל כך, אין רגע שתזכרו מהסרט עד שתרדמו
  3. Nicenin
    Feb 14, 2002
    3
    Looks fantastic but sorely lacking in magic and narrative coherence.
  4. BobB.
    Feb 19, 2002
    1
    Weak on every level. No character development at all. Just three hours of cgi and dull dialogue. I'll pass on the sequel.
  5. 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
  6. AppleH.
    Apr 19, 2002
    0
    An absolute horrible movie devoid of any character development. Pure garbage!
  7. 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.
  8. RobM.
    Jan 3, 2002
    3
    Much, too much helicopter shots...too much close ups of the ring! Music reminded me of scooby-doo cartoons...it never stopped! Moved waaay too slow for 3 hour movie! ...what the hell is the movie about? Am I the only one that didn't get it!???
  9. Kim
    Sep 2, 2002
    3
    Let me just put it this way...I walked into the movie half an hour late and it was STILL too long!
  10. SeanB.
    Apr 20, 2002
    3
    Yeah, it was fun to watch at times, but this movie was totally devoid of any sort of excitement or parity. Every "bad guy" that the group encountered on the way was essentially the same, and after a while, I really stopped caring about what was going on. Waaaaaaaaay overrated.
  11. Calavera
    Sep 4, 2002
    3
    A nerdy movie for nerdy people. What's going on? Suddenly, the movie industry and the pc game industry have been plauged with D and D sh*t. I mean come on, this is probably one of the worst films ever made. Yes, the acting and cinematography are excellent, but the premise is geared for an audience that once ran around outside and pretended to cast spells on each other! A wonderful A nerdy movie for nerdy people. What's going on? Suddenly, the movie industry and the pc game industry have been plauged with D and D sh*t. I mean come on, this is probably one of the worst films ever made. Yes, the acting and cinematography are excellent, but the premise is geared for an audience that once ran around outside and pretended to cast spells on each other! A wonderful dialouge, for a silly idea. The action scenes were a total bore. The characters were sickening- as in I couldn't stand listening to they're annoying voices, or look at these stupid characters. Hollywood's going downhill- well this is proof...especially if people are treating it like the be-all end all of films ...sigh...revenge of the nerds? Expand
  12. JeepyW
    Dec 21, 2001
    3
    New Zealand tourist video meets Meatloaf album cover. Stunning fight scenes, but treacly character development and sodden pacing. At least a half hour of the film's runtime must be spent watching Elijah Wood gape wide-eyed at something.
  13. 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
  14. 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!
  15. D.T.
    Mar 17, 2002
    2
    Ick! They should atl east give the ending a little bit of 'ending'. It's extremely long-winded. But I do have to give it credit for its amazing effects (and that's the only best bit about the movie).
  16. BarbaraD.
    Jun 1, 2002
    0
    Absolutely terrible film with no character development at all. Probably will score big with pre-teens but insults the intelligence of adults. Same scene repeated over and over. Childrens story and childish film.
  17. Ned
    Nov 7, 2002
    1
    Like a round of torture at the hands of a narcoleptic Torquemada, this movie not only broke my will to live, but did so at far greater length than was necessary. The cinematography was good (hence the 1) and the acting was mediocre. The plot, however, equal parts immature fantasy and mawkish tripe, was terrible. The story was like something a six-year-old would tell his babysitter. The Like a round of torture at the hands of a narcoleptic Torquemada, this movie not only broke my will to live, but did so at far greater length than was necessary. The cinematography was good (hence the 1) and the acting was mediocre. The plot, however, equal parts immature fantasy and mawkish tripe, was terrible. The story was like something a six-year-old would tell his babysitter. The characters were dull, leaving me at best utterly uninterested in what would happen to them, or more often hoping that they would get killed off just to momentarily alleviate my boredom. The battle scenes were both ridiculous and tedious. I haven't read the book, and now realize that I'm a better, more cultured man for it. This Tolkien rubbish is prime evidence of the dumbing-down of Western culture. The movie is an abomination and an abortion! If you want solid, deliberate character development, watch a Werner Herzog film. If you're a masochist, watch this cinematic atrocity. Expand
  18. 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
  19. JaredH.
    Apr 1, 2002
    0
    There was such a diverse opinion in either you loved or hated it, that I decided to see it for myself. Without question a terribly overrated flick that only children would like.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. EdisonR.
    Jan 1, 2002
    7
    Movie true to form. The movie was believable. The special effects was great. The story left us hanging for the next eposide. The use of the teamwork was great. The movie sticked close to the book
  24. JackD.
    Jan 3, 2002
    8
    It could be called "Long of the Rings" (because of the inclusion of all the unused scenes from "The Mummy Returns"), but it is highly entertaining. I cant wait for the next 16 hours....
  25. ColierD.
    Jan 3, 2002
    6
    The special effects are, of course, good. However, the film is ultimately just an overlong film that is too intense for young children and is, at heart, a simplistic action flick that has little to offer adults.
  26. VladimirP.
    Feb 4, 2002
    9
    Cool!
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. NeilA.
    Oct 9, 2002
    7
    Ok - I've read all the users' reviews... About halfway through the film I kept looking at my watch wondering when this thing would end. Or maybe when it would start. Having no prior knowledge of the story, I expected a traditional movie - meaning a plot, and that usually includes some sort of ending. I didn't know it was merely part 1 of 3. Scene after scene I kept thinking Ok - I've read all the users' reviews... About halfway through the film I kept looking at my watch wondering when this thing would end. Or maybe when it would start. Having no prior knowledge of the story, I expected a traditional movie - meaning a plot, and that usually includes some sort of ending. I didn't know it was merely part 1 of 3. Scene after scene I kept thinking how ridiculous it was that despite all odds, the hero always overcame those incredible odds to be triumphant. It's a shame the best actor/character was the only one to perish in all the fighting. On the way home from the theater I would have rated this movie a 5, only for its excellent cinematography and Ian McKellen's performance. But after digesting it more, I appreciated it more too, and would have to upgrade my rating. But viewers should be forewarned. If you want to lose yourself in a fantasy world, go ahead and enjoy the movie. But if you want to see a good action movie, you'll be disappointed. Expand
  30. AndrewC.
    Feb 1, 2002
    9
    What else can I say? Great film. Can't wait for the upcoming sequels.
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. 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.