Not unwatchable, but OK

Rating: 5/10 (25 August 2002)

I'm sorry--I know that all of the big Lord of the Rings fans out there will hate me for this, but I did not like this movie that much. It was about halfway through that I started to realize that about half the battle scenes could have been out and nothing would have been lost in the movie. This movie was too long and could have easily fallen below two hours if they edited better. The acting was also not the best (with an exception given to Ian McKellan). Everyone says that Lord of the Rings was better at setting up at atmosphere than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but the whole movie looked like it was shot in Ireland. Harry Potter was a better movie and Lord of the Rings was definitely not the best of the year as many critics have said. Not unwatchable, but also not worth my money to go to the theater. An OK movie.