Rating: 
Summary: About as bad as you can get
Review: This has absolutly nothing to do with "The Lord of the Ring". The title was just a poor excuse to use previously filmed stuff to tie into the movie as another meathod of that great Hollywood game HYPING. I have seen some bad examples of the concept in my time but this one has got to be the worst. I mean the movie does not even mention NEW ZELAND for God's sake shouldn't a movie supposidly showcasing where the movies were filmed at least attempt to do that. Overall-Don't get suckered by the Lord of the Rings on the box, save your money.
Rating:
Summary: About as bad as you can get
Review: This has absolutly nothing to do with "The Lord of the Ring". The title was just a poor excuse to use previously filmed stuff to tie into the movie as another meathod of that great Hollywood game HYPING. I have seen some bad examples of the concept in my time but this one has got to be the worst. I mean the movie does not even mention NEW ZELAND for God's sake shouldn't a movie supposidly showcasing where the movies were filmed at least attempt to do that. Overall-Don't get suckered by the Lord of the Rings on the box, save your money.
Rating:
Summary: About as bad as you can get
Review: This has absolutly nothing to do with "The Lord of the Ring". The title was just a poor excuse to use previously filmed stuff to tie into the movie as another meathod of that great Hollywood game HYPING. I have seen some bad examples of the concept in my time but this one has got to be the worst. I mean the movie does not even mention NEW ZELAND for God's sake shouldn't a movie supposidly showcasing where the movies were filmed at least attempt to do that. Overall-Don't get suckered by the Lord of the Rings on the box, save your money.
Rating: 
Summary: Alternately amusing and bemusing
Review: Well, I bought this DVD to see a particular movie clip, and I saw the clip. As to the rest, I think I would rephrase the sentence: National Geographic struggles to provide Aragorn a historical context beyond the movie. While there are lots of interesting tidbits about certain very well-known historical figures, they all seem to have been dragged in (kicking and screaming?) from other documentaries. Certainly none of them had anything to do with Tolkien or the actual historical sources that inspired him!
Rating: 
Summary: Really disappointing
Review: When I saw this I was happy for another show about Lord of the Rings because I love the books and the movies, but this is not really about the LOTR, is more about war and, really strange explanations about how is LOTR linked to history. I like History, I'm a historian myself but when I watched this I was expecting something really different :(, I give it 3 stars because I did had some spoilers about ROTK, but as a National Geographic work??, is not worth that much.
Rating:
Summary: National Geographic slipped on this one
Review: Where the original National Geographic Beyond the Movie - The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring was quite decent, providing an analogy of the creation of Middle Earth, and what personal events Tolkien probably inserted into his masterpiece, this one is the complete opposite. While the concept basically is the same (interviews with the cast, experts, etc), the underlying theme is extremely poor. Basically the makers of this documentary start comparing characters in Lord of the Rings to real historical figures. Wormtongue poisoned Theoden's mind with lies; Rasputin did the same. So Wormtongue might have been based on Rasputin. Aragorn dwelled in the wilderness for years, only to return and claim his throne. Theodore Roosevelt lost his wife and mother, and retreated to a ranch in Dakota; the wild. See the connection? Characters in the Lord of the Rings most likely have not been based on any real persons. And if they were, I'm quite sure Professor Tolkien would have mentioned it somewhere. While even linking world events to Lord of the Rings was speculative, this is just stretching it. Very poor.
| 
