Pauly

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/Lord_O...o_/10697/1834/

Jason

Well, at least it isn't mindless trashing, even though calling it LOTR 2 shows a certain level of ignorance. His biggest beef seems to be with the editing. I doubt the movie would work if it were presented as it is in the book (2 seperate linear stories), as this reviewer seems to want. Perhaps we'll see a "phantom edit" someday and can judge for ourselves.

Overall, I agree that turning Gimli into comic relief was unnecessary, but I thought the interaction between Gimli and Legolas at Helms Deep helped to show how the characters had become friends. And the body count contest is straight out of the book, so I can't complain about that.

The TTT:EE looks like it will add more to the overall story than the FOTR:EE did.

al_bundy

Although I loved both the movie and the book versions of LOTR, I think that making the movie more like the book would put people to sleep. The book was meant to be read over many sittings. The movie needs a faster pace in order to captivate the audience for a few hours.

But even I'm at a loss as to why PJ changed some things from the book such as Frodo's capture, the character of Theoden and other things.

Ian11

I do feel the TTT theatrical fell short compared to the FOTR theatrical and of course the EE. I'm still hoping the EE of the TTT will fix some of the uneven pacing and flesh out a few of the scenes that did not seem to work very well. I will say TTT theatrical plays better for me upon repeat viewings but it still cannot approach FOTR's deft storytelling. Don't get me wrong TTT is still a great experience but FOTR was simply a tighter movie because (by design) it was easier to follow the Fellowship as one group than when they split apart into 3 separate stories; not to mention the other things going on in Isengard, Edoras, Rivendell, Lorien, and Mordor. (Thankfully ROTK will be "tighter" in comparison to TTT because the focus will converge onto Gondor and Mordor.) Also, when I read LOTR the first 2 times TTT dragged compared to FOTR and ROTK. I have a feeling TTT was probably an even greater challenge to put together for PJ (and the editors) than FOTR but they didn't "quite" get it as well as they could have.

Anyways, its obvious this reviewer enjoyed TTT theatrical far less than I did so I have a feeling the EE will be a better experience for me.

Jay G.

I think Ian hit it on the head when he says the problems with TTT arose from the novel, since the source has some of the same problems the film did.

I'm going to take this review with a grain of salt, since the reviewing thinks that the theatrical cut was too long in the first place, wheras I felt the theatrical felt a bit rushed.

My favorite line from the review: "Obviously, [the Cast Commentary] provides the most fun since you feel as if you’re part of one big group hug. "

Ian11

Jay,

That's another thing that colors many people's experience of the films. Too many slavishly believe the book LOTR by Tolkien is this impeccable flawless piece of work thats beyond reproach. Don't get me wrong its fantastic and it is "the source" . But there are so many things in PJ's films that plays better than the way Tolkien tells it in the books (and of course many that do not). Heresy? Whatever. I'm reading LOTR again right now (5th time) with the first 2 films clearly in my mind and that's the way I feel.

Inverse

The review basically says "I didn't like the theatrical TTT that much so I don't like the EE any better." Fair enough, I suppose.

Terrell

Weren't the books named LOTR 1, LOTR 2, etc.?

Inverse

Nope. The three books are usually referred to by their titles (FOTR, TT, ROTK). My paperback copy of ROTK *does* have "The Lord of the Rings Part Three" in small print on the cover above "The Return of the King" ... but the spine just says "The Return of the King."

No big deal, but it's like referring to ESB as "Star Wars 2" or "Star Wars 5" -- nobody uses that phrasing.

Jason

Calling it LOTR 2 or LOTR 3 just makes it sound like it's another faceless hollywood action series. It's three parts of one story, not a trilogy trying to milk the popularity of a popular movie.

fumanstan

I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing it that way, and in this case i dont think there's any real meaning behind what he calls the movie. I'm actually happy to see a review where the reviewer wasn't gushing over how the movies are some sort of magnificent piece of art and praising Peter Jackson.

Regardless, it is obvious that the reviewer just wasn't too big of a fan of the theaterical release, and felt the same about the extended. I felt a similar way about Fellowship, although it grew on me after a few viewings.

hmurchison

The reviewer makes the same mistake that many do. They offer all the criticism of a particular problem with solution in return.

It's easy to say "I didn't like the way they cut the film by taking me away from one story just as it got good and transporting me to another" Well honestly what sense does that make? Should they have cut during a dull and boring scene so that you care not what happens or even if that scene is revisted? Folly.

FotR was easier to film. The "Fellowship" was together on a single timeline. Now, in TTT, we have a breaking of the Fellowship and 3 distinct timelines to convey to an audience. This is much harder to film and cut obviously. The charm of the first was having such a rich cast all together an interacting.

I think TTT is the equal to FotR considering the new difficulties it presented. Audiences will have to become acquainted with the timelines and story. Hey they should relax...reading the book is harder. They're getting off easy.

bjhess

And also, isn't TTT widely considered the most boring of the three books? The fact that many consider the movie equal to the first is an acheivement.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong about my blanket statement.

Josh H

No, they were all published at one time. Just split up for whatever reason. Jumping from FOTR to TTT and from TTT to ROTK is no different than any other chapter change in the book. They're just section names basically.

al_bundy

Tolkien originally wrote one big book and was forced by the publisher to divide it in 3. He couldn't think up of a name for the second installment and so he called it the Two Towers for no reason as far as I know.

Brian Shannon

Correct. Calling them three different stories is not accurate.

The Lord of the Rings is one story and one book.

It was split into three parts against Tolkiens wishes because of paper cost and publisher concern over whether the story would be well received.

caiman

Not to me. I think they get more interesting as they progress. FOTR, while very good, is pretty dull near the beginning. TTT ups the action level even more, and ROTK blows them both out of them water.

jarofclay73

I don't think it's a necessarily "negative" review since he still recommends the movie on the strength of Gollum. And he still give the EE a "6" rating.

It's just not on the same level of the endless gushing of the LOTR series as a whole.

Actually, I agree with him on almost all his points. And I wasn't going to buy the TTT:EE anyway. I thought the theatrical cut was good enough for me and the special features were good enough.

I have the FOTR:EE and never even got to the commentaries and I don't have a particular urge to hear it.

Michael T Hudson

Anyone heard if there is going to be a free ticket insided like last year?

RKillgore

How's this guy going to like the separate storylines when Return of the King has four of them?

Dr. DVD

The most recent review says that the cut is more for Tolkien fans than the FOTR EE. They do not say it is negative, just that it doesn't have much for people who don't care about what it has to offer.

DodgingCars

I hope the EE is worth it. I loved the extra footage in FOTR and felt that it made the movie better. I hope I feel the same way about TTT: EE

So far, the two movies together are 2 of my favorite movies of all time, and I don't consider myself a "fanboy." I have yet to read the books (though I plan to some day).

Please don't let me be disappointed! I've been looking forward to the EE for some time -- in fact I haven't seen TTT since I saw it in the theater almost a year ago -- anxiously and patiently awaiting the EE DVD to come out.

LivingINClip

I can almost understand where he is coming from. I didn't care for FOTR the first time and the EE didn't do much to hold my interest. It was a case of "too much of one thing". Then TTT came around, I loved it and can't wait for the EE of it.

Like someone else said, this boils down to the fact he didn't like the original cut , so the EE isn't going to do anything to change his opinion of it.

TCG

this website gave a fairly negative review of TTT:EE. only 3/5 stars, including lots of criticism.

fumanstan

Which is why calling it LOTR 2, 3, etc shouldn't matter since its all one story