Doesn't deserve to be # 1

Rating: 1/10 (19 January 2002)

I liked this film and all, but does anyone really think this film is better than Lord of the Rings? Come on! It's surprising how many people supposedly "love" this film, yet can only put up the defense that it was well acted. A few mumblings here and there do not good acting make. And the attention to detail argument? "It's so detailed - exactly as that era!" So what? Lord of the Rings brought to life a FANTASY land, far more challenging than 1940's New York.