What is sad about having your own opinion? Not all the critics loved it btw. A quick Google threw up the following reviews (among all the accolades, I have to admit) on Rotten Tomatoes:
"In Jackson's version, Tolkien's arcane mythology is reduced to a banal good vs. evil battle. The good guys are handsome warriors and elves, while their foes are black-clad wraiths on horseback and a legion of gruesome demons. Is The Fellowship of the Ring anything more than a $100 million "Dungeons and Dragons" game conjured to the screen? Nay, sire. It is imaginative, fierce, even thrilling in spots. Nevertheless, as the curtain comes down, the credits should read Game Over, not The End."
"Jackson’s interpretation of the trilogy is sometimes spirited and bold, other times humdrum and excessive. Clocking in at more than three hours, “Fellowship of the Ring” does drag at times but is more amiable than some others in the genre. The earnest performances and breathtaking scenery held my interest. . . But this film is filled with enough peril, bravery and mythical characters to gratify my most elaborate illusions. Yet I still came away empty, wanting more. I was expecting something that I could get lost in but instead found myself wading through some things that were less than satisfactory."
"The film is lavishly produced with lots of special effects – some quite violent, necessitating the PG
-13 rating – but very little heart. Elijah Wood gets to grimace repeatedly as Frodo suffers physically and mentally, but Jackson never succeeds in making us care about any of it. Everyone on screen is all exercised about Frodo’s mission, but after three hours it’s hard to see why anyone in the audience should be."
"The first Lord of the Rings film is remarkably well made, but not equally entertaining. The pacing of the picture bogs the entire thing down. The actors look deep into each other's eyes time and time again, usually in slow motion, seemingly grinding the film to a halt, as it stretches itself out past the three hour mark . . . The movie goes in circles and never seems to come to an end. Still, the FX
are the best I've seen in years, and it's worth a dollar theater viewing, just to take in the wonderful scenery. Fans of the book will most likely be wetting themselves, but the casual viewer may wind up thinking the whole thing is all wet."
93% of the reviews were positive, I have to admit, but not all the critics were taken by the films. I particularly liked this revew of The Return of the King:
"This third instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy suffers from the same faults as its two predecessors, namely it is (1) overlong, (2) takes itself way too seriously and is (3) a case of much ado about nothing . . .
Three hours in, as it was winding down to its predictable (both in general and specifics) ending, I found that my arse was sore and numb. There was another twenty minutes to go as we are made to sit through one endless coda after the other. Ultimately I felt as empty as we are made to believe some of the main characters are supposed to feel . . . and as empty as the movie itself.
And make no mistake: Return of the King is an empty spectacle. Nowhere did any of its characters feel like real people with real emotions – they were simply too nobly self-sacrificing, too evil, etc. for that – they are mere archetypes. To be honest I found myself more emotionally touched by the 80 minutes or so of the recent Pieces of April (shot on digital camera for a mere $160,000) than the entire three hours of the multi-million dollar Return of the King."
"Lord of the Rings"? "The Emperor´s New Clothes" more likely. And why are fans so touchy about it?