just OK

Rating: 6/10 (27 December 2001)

All right, look. I know this movie was based on an epic novel (well, the first part of an epic novel, anyway). I know the filmmakers were facing pressure from Tolkien devotees to make sure the movie stayed faithful to the novel. If they did, then "Lord Of The Rings" must be one heck of a dull read.
Simply put, there just ain't much of a plot to this story. Frodo and his pals hit the road and fight some monsters. Then they get to that walled town with the pub and ... fight some monsters. Then they go to the elf town of Rivendell and ... fight some monsters. Then they journey into the dark mines of Tora Bora or whatever and ... fight some more monsters. And what was that big ugly thing in the mines supposed to be, anyway? When the hobbits & co. fought it, I was distinctly reminded of Dan Aykroyd trying to narfle the garthok in "Coneheads".
Then there's the sex appeal problem. Would it have ruined old J-Double-R's 1,137-page behemoth to include a female or two in the Fellowship? Legolas, Gandalf, and that fat guy with the axe stick around for the entire 2-hour-45-minute production, and Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett get five minutes each? I don't know about the rest of the "Rings" fans out there, but I definitely would rather have seen the beautiful Liv shooting those arrows off than that blond guy.
This wasn't a bad movie. The scenery was amazing, especially Rivendell. The fight scenes and action sequences were exciting. Ian McKellen's fight with Saruman and the disintegrating staircase scene in the mine were show-stealers. It just wasn't that great. As Austin Powers might have said, this was the Diet Coke of fantasy movies -- not awful, but not too tasty either. To see it listed here as the #1 movie of all time, ahead of classics like "The Godfather" and "The Shawshank Redemption", is a joke.