Yar, you be here: The Lord Of The Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy (Widescreen Edition) > Customer Reviews

The Lord Of The Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy (Widescreen Edition) Customer Reviews (28 - 30 of 42 Reviews)

Stop!!!!
Don't buy. Wait for the Extended version which will be like 10 times better. The only reason I don't give this 1 star is because it's LOTR and it's the bomb regardless but any true diehard LOTR fan would much rather have the extended version or even the extended GIFT SET version. Just a warning

more than epic battle scenes
For most of us who have loved LOTR for decades, our initial wariness in anticipation of the films carefully gave way to general delight upon experiencing the results of Peter Jackson's vision. It's certainly not the original LOTR, but it's a lovingly and extremely well-interpreted version. For many fans of the films, the new boxed DVD set will be wonderful and will be plenty. For those who also enjoyed the books, however, the extended version will be worth waiting for.

While Jackson is being lauded for his amazing battle scenes, there is so much more to the books--and the films--than that. Considering Tolkien wrote the books decades ago, even the female characters, though few, are strong in their own right, rather than passive victims to be rescued. And, yes, Peter Jackson made some changes, but kept true to Tolkien's conception. A previous reviewer's correcting of Jackson's "changes" are themselves not completely accurate:

1. The time constraints of a movie are exceedingly different from the pacing of a book. Jackson did give proportionately more time to the love between Aragorn and Arwen than the book does, but it is not true that in the book it is "almost nonexistent". Try reading Tolkien more thoroughly. The appendices are almost a third of the last book, and add a lot of information.

And speaking of book/movie comparisons, the time spent on special effect battle scenes in the movies far surpasses the space given to battle scenes in the books. We're not hearing a lot of complaining about that, but if you haven't read the books and are intrigued by Tolkien's world, you'll find much to love in the full works.

2.The same reviewer claims that Eowyn's slaying of the king of the Nazgul was politically correct cuteness on Jackson's part. Not true. Read the scene in the book again. It did matter that she was a woman, and while Merry's help was invaluable, the final mortal blow was Eowyn's:

" 'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!'
'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman.'
The Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt....Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her after being stabbed behind the knee by Merry. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe."

Scenes in the book are certainly open to interpretation. But there's a lot of evidence for Jackson's correct interpretation of this scene.

All in all, wonderful--books and films, both.

Great trilogy, but missed the mark in a few places
It is hard to take issue with Peter Jackson's trilogy. The scenery, characters, and epic battles were incredible, at times even surpassing the books in grandeur and excitement. The battle between Saruman and Gandalf in The Fellowship was more complete in the movie. The books were more poetic, like classical epics, and as such had richer characters and more overall depth.

That said, I didn't like some of the changes that were made. Some were understandable, but others should have been reworked a bit to more clearly portray the characters of the books.

1. No Tom Bombadil or Barrow Wites [understandable given the length of the films]

2. Obligatory love story injected between Aragorn and Arwen that was almost non-existent in the books. Jackson changed several pieces of the story to add this love affair. It was the elf Glorfindel, not Arwen, who carried Frodo to safety in Rivendell and vanquished the Nazgul (with some help from Gandalf). Aragorn never fell off a cliff in battle, only to be awakened by Arwen's love. In fact, I don't think that battle with the wolves ever happened.

3. There was no elf army from Lorien that came to Helm's Deep. It was the Ents (Huorns, actually) who stomped them in the end.

4. Merry and Pippin never tricked the Ents into going to war against Saruman. They weren't that 'astute'. Treebeard decided it, and roused the others to leave Fangorn.

5. Frodo never threatened to hand the ring to the Nazgul, nor did he ever see the Eye of Sauron except in the Mirror of Galadriel. Gandalf expended all his energy to prevent it from happening when Frodo dualed with Boromir.

6. Frodo didn't meet with Aragorn after his encounter with Boromir. He decided to split with the Fellowship on his own.

7. There didn't seem to be any distinction between ordinary men and the Men of Westernesse like Aragorn and the Rangers who were really 'super-human', and lived far longer than ordinary men. In some ways, their power exceeded that of wizards. Even Gandalf did not dare wrestle with Sauron through the palantir, whereas Aragorn did (quite successfully).

8. The movie made it seem as though Eowyn was able to kill the Lord of the Nazgul because she was a woman (a cute, politically correct idea...but not accurate). It was Merry's stroke into the leg of the Nazgul Lord that sent him into shadow.

Nazgul Lord: "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

God I love these books!

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Next Page