Rating: 
Summary: Extra scenes and Colin Duriez is a great mix to me
Review: The fact that the extra scenes are seemlessly worked into the DVD as if they were always there is the major plus to this DVD and made it worth the money alone. But we do also, in the fascinating "making of" interviews, get not just the usual making of interviews but also experts - and here it really is worth it just for Colin Duriez, whose books on both Lewis and Tolkien (and his wonderful new book on their friendship) gives it the extra edge that the previous DVD versions did not have. So buy it for the extra scenes and for Colin Duriez. Christopher Catherwood, author of CHURCHILL'S FOLLY (Carroll and Graf) and CHRISTIANS MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan).
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Adaptation
Review: I have to say I usually hate movies that have been adapted from great literary works. This is a HUGE exception. This film captured the wonder of Middle Earth. It brought to life the battles that were so amazing when reading the book. Although Jackson took a few liberties with the adaptation and rearranged it a little, it didn't make too much of a difference. A must have for any fan of the books!
Rating:
Summary: Watch brilliant commenators like Colin Duriez on this DVD
Review: This is GREAT folks! Not only are all the extra scenes fully incorporated into the movie, making it even better than ever, but you also get the views of experts, like top British CS Lewis and Tolkien buff Colin Duriez, the author of some of the best books around on Tolkien. I have watched this many times - hope you do too!
Rating: 
Summary: Greatness but not without flaws
Review: Peter Jackson's talents as a film-maker were a revelation to most people who have seen his stunning Lord of the Rings Series. But I knew way back in 1994 when I saw his movie "Heavenly Creatures" that he was something special. The second instalment in the trilogy is an excellent film, a visual experience and part of a great story. There are a few problems with the ocassional bouts of wooden acting, plus the dangerously camp relationship between Frodo and Sam. The most interesting sequences in the film center around Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas. Pippin and Merry have their moments but the slowness of their scenes with Treebeard is too much of a contrast to the action taking place at Helms Deep. I found Gollum to be a bit ponderous, the comparison that one reviewer made to Jar Jar Binks is sadly apt. It is kind of mind boggling that Frodo would actually trust him, much less follow him anywhere, unless he was seriously thick. Indeed it must be said that those are the qualities that Elijah Wood imbues his character Frodo with. To be fair Jackson didn't really give Wood much to work with and one does have to wonder whether his scenes with Sam were written with the script-writer's tongue firmly planted in his cheek. The Orcs and the Uruk Hai are compelling but sadly given insufficient screen time. It would have been fantastic to get more of an insight into their world etc. In all this is part of a great trilogy. Try not to mind that all the people of middle earth are white, as if no other races exist, or that you could build a raft with the acting. This is a great piece of film-making. If only Kate Winslet had been available instead of Liv Tyler, or if Tobey Maguire had played Frodo. Imagine even Denzel Washington as Aragorn (!!?). That said there are some nice performances from a few Australian actors. Hasn't Hugo Weaving come along since his turn as Douglas Jardine on the Aussie tv series "Bodyline." David Wenham is a far cry from Diver Dan from "Seachange" and Miranda Otto is the same girl from "Love Serenade." Just think what would have happened if Claudia Karvan, Naomi Watts and Noah Taylor had turned up? Heck, Judy Davis could have played Frodo's mum .... Anthony LaPaglia could have played Saruman...There might have been some real acting. Despite some of the glaring shortcomings Jackson has made a classic piece of Western cinema. But not a classic piece of world cinema ...
Rating:
Summary: Looking forward to Part III
Review: The second installment of a trilogy is always the toughest to pull off. It inevitably lacks the freshness of Part I, and the climax of Part III, and so the best one can hope for is to move the story along, and hope we're all intrigued enough to want to carry on. Peter Jackson solves this dilemma by making the second installment of his LOTR trilogy a cut 'em up, slash 'em up, fast-paced shootout focusing on a series of epic battles. And he does quite well. The film's battle scenes are truly spectacular, both in scope and scale, and Jackson allows his cinematographer to flourish throughout the film, as the New Zealand landscapes dominate the screen. Rarely has such a violent film been so gorgeous to look at. My biggest beefs with this series continue to be a fairly uninspired script that's rife with clichés thinly-masked in archaic lingo, and a dimwitted central character (Frodo) who's not compelling in the slightest. The Two Towers also would have done well not to feature so much of that annoying, incomprehensible, animated creature Gollum, who I found only slightly less contemptible than the dubious Jar Jar Binks of Star Wars infamy. But I quickly forgave this film's flaws and went along for the ride, caught up in the sheer energy of the film, and I found myself enthusiastically looking forward to Part III. Mission accomplished, Mr. Jackson, and a job well done.
Rating:
Summary: OH MY GOD
Review: I love Gollum/Smegual IF you watch the making of him, it's really a guy with a computer graphic over it. And he does the voice for it. It's absoultely amazing what he went through for the characeter. But I loved the war scene, it takes my breath away every time. I dont know if you remember this scene, but the part where the guy with the white beard, the evil one is talking to worm tounge about having enough warriors and when worm tounge came out and saw 10,000 fighters, he started to cry, and he's an evil guy, I thought that was great to put that in. Even he was amazed by the war. AMAZING!!!!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: ...
Review: This is a good movie and I give it four stars, becuase after reading the books I am a little dissappointed at some of the parts that were left out, but that is understandable. To you people who are saying that this is a terrible movie/book and that Peter Jackson did a terrible job, you probably couldn't do half as well of a job as he did with the films, and if you were asked to write a best seller like this trilogy, you would probably fail miserably.
Rating: 
Summary: Man, this STUNK
Review: Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself
for what he's done to a piece of classic
fantasy literature. Characters, especially
Gimli, are altered for comic relief. Scenes
are so changed that they're barely
recognizable. This was terrible. I highly
suggest buying the book and skipping this
dreck.
Rating:
Summary: Not the book, but it doesn't have to be...
Review: The biggest problem Tolkien fans have for the film versions of these books, particularly The Two Towers, is that they compare them too closely with the books. When being critical of a movie, whether based on a book or not, one must judge it in the context of film alone. As such, this movie is terrific, genus not just on the part of Peter Jackson's story telling skills, put a work of collective genus by artists, writers, craftsmen, and actors. Sadly the ending doesn't have the leave you hanging feeling to the same extent of the first one, but there's enough of one to make you want to come back. The acting was just on target for the characters, Merry, Pippen, and Gimli are particularly enjoyable and add much appreciated comic relieve. Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar for his Gollum and Faramir's character is wonderfully complexe (thanks to the added scenes that never should have been cut) and so much love went into creating Rohan it's impossible not prefer Edoras to Minas Tirith (in the 3rd film). The three plot style is wonderfully handled, never once losing the audience, and skillfully swithes from one to another just when one plot is starting to be exposed for too long. The only scenes which trouble me are Aragorn's mystic revival (kind of sappy but the irritation doesn't last long) and the Hurons marching to Helms Deep is confusing as you don't see enough of them and Treebeard doesn't explain the situation enough.
As for changes from the book, if one wants to explore that, I don't dissaprove of any of them, especially after the explanations in the extra features, they do much to streamline a complicated plot that works good on written page, but in a movie format would loose too many people. The only change that irks me a little is Faramir, but after seeing Return of the King, and the flash backs (and his small lament over a fallen enemy soldier that one might remember Sam thinking in the book)I feel they didn't change him, we just discover him more slowly-and maybe more realistically. One more thing, thank GOD they made these pictures with a Historical Film mindset and not Fantasy Fiction.
Rating: 
Summary: Even more horrible than 'Star Wars'
Review: When I was much younger and nearly all of my friends were pushing Tolkien's books on me with proselytizing zeal, I was taken aback at that glassy-eyed, Dungeons-and-Dragons look that overtook them as they spoke. It was just plain scary. I guess I was too busy reading Tom Wolfe, going to jazz concerts, and chasing girls - er, not necessarily in that order. So maybe it's just me, I dunno. My teenage kids sure seem to like this stuff. Personally, long-winded fairytales about fantasy races in a fantasy world mumbling nonsense about "Orthanc Tower in Isengard, where the corrupted wizard Saruman waits and Sauron's fortress at Baraddur, deep within the dark lands of Mordor..." blah blah blah, are just not my cup of tea. I know, I know, that's about as popular a sentiment as hating the God-awful 'Star Wars' movies, but in my opinion a good movie simply has to have well-developed, interesting characters that one can in some way relate to or care about and a plot that's thicker than a sheet of paper. The heroes in these LOTR movies are simply boring and one-dimensional and the villains are about as scary as your typical Trick-or-Treater. Show me a single character here who is even remotely as interesting as anyone in 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre'. Show me a plot that's anywhere near as beautifully woven as in 'Out of Africa' or 'Becket' or 'The English Patient'. Show me real adventure and passion on the scale of 'Braveheart' or action as tense and riveting as 'Das Boot'. Show me anything here as scary as Satan his own badass self in 'The Exorcist'. Anyone? Anyone? Stunned silence. I gave it 3 stars only because (a.) I could look at Liv Tyler all day long, even with those bloody elf ears; (b.) the scope and quality of the production is obviously grand; and (c.) most of the actors are quite competent. However, I could simply care less about "the ring" or who has it or any of these LOTR creatures. Except Liv, that is. Now there's my idea of fantasy!
| 
