The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 19, 2001

9.0	USER SCORE Universal acclaim based on 2599 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

Tomas_AJul 20, 2022

Unrealistic, false, boring and a thousand more aspects for not to see it, stupid, watching that movie is an idiocy.

1 of 10 users found this helpful19

All this user's reviews

MikeF.Jul 25, 2006

Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I mean this. Even bad movies are better, because at least the directors of those know thy're not making art. What sent this picture plummeting off the scale, earning a complete zero, was the impression I had that Jackson thought he was creating a work of art. What a joke. In fact, I wish it were a joke -- a bunch of one-dimensional characters speaking a sort of bad-Shakespeare dialect. Good lord.… Expand

5 of 59 users found this helpful

NiggAOct 23, 2007

It sucked my left nut on the right side bullshit it sucked both the balls freestyle that shit and eat it.

1 of 28 users found this helpful

KenCApr 25, 2010

It's generally accepted that when adapting a book you invariably end up removing scenes. A filmmaker's responsibility to the source material is to capture the essence of it with some respect. Jackson manages to only capture the It's generally accepted that when adapting a book you invariably end up removing scenes. A filmmaker's responsibility to the source material is to capture the essence of it with some respect. Jackson manages to only capture the surface layer of the story and by adding a good 100 minutes of additional scenes that are not in the book he lets the source down badly. Some argue that it is a "reimagining" and that it was impossible to film otherwise which is nonsense. The added and erroneous scenes could easily have been replaced with some of the key ones that were removed. Tom Bombadil in "Fellowship" for example, and "The Scouring Of The Shire" which was critical to Return Of The King as you see how the members of the fellowship were so changed by their experiences. Replacing such critical scenes with dross shows a complete lack of respect for the source. In the end Jackson's LOTR is all sound and fury signifying nothing more than the filmmakers ego. What an awful waste.… Expand

1 of 29 users found this helpful

FairbottomMay 23, 2018

Appearances can be very deceiving. Upon first glance, this seems like a boring and stupid film about a troupe of short people who have to take a ring somewhere that's of some consequence. But this is much too literal an interpretation. TheAppearances can be very deceiving. Upon first glance, this seems like a boring and stupid film about a troupe of short people who have to take a ring somewhere that's of some consequence. But this is much too literal an interpretation. The movie is actually an elaborate metaphor for something else, which is also boring and stupid.

People often miss this nuance.… Expand

0 of 10 users found this helpful010

All this user's reviews

IThristaNSep 10, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Wtf **** dworfs i hate this!!! lol its not cannon guys lets rait this on 0. Report report… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews