AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

spamcreek This documentary's stated thesis is to show why the Lord of the Rings trilogy resonates with so many people. The hypothesis it presents is that many people can relate well to the themes and characters in the books/movies. It is well narrated by John Rhys-Davies, the actor that played Gimli in the movies.The documentary then covers the major themes of the books/movies and the characters with which those themes are named. Each theme that is covered shows an example story from history that relates closely to the theme. The documentary NEVER claims that Tolkien was influenced by these real-life examples, it is merely supporting the thesis that people can relate to the themes/characters by using examples from real life.Some reviewers seem to have the notion that this documentary is meant to show how Tolkien's life influenced the book. That notion is false. For a documentary that covers this aspect of The Lord of the Rings, see the similarly named National Geographic documentary that is two years older (IMDB page here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312999/ ).

Melissa Aaron Must agree with "Yeoman's" review. . . . National Geographic offers a more scholarly overview of Tolkien's trilogy and the already classic films inspired by the texts.I wouldn't go so far to say that this documentary is 'for adults,' because doing so grossly underestimates the intellectual capacities of 21st century reading, film-watching, and video-game interactive youths. There is a vast difference between what youths born in the late 20th century and early 21st century are capable of comprehending in contrast to what mid-20th century or older adults are more likely to pay attention to. Our exposure to mass media in our earliest ages of development are extraordinarily different! For instance, a typical US urban public school educated 8yo can have one go at a "Lord of the Rings" video game without noticeable difficulty. Whereas, a comparable middle-age adult might not even be interested in the game, let alone be even moderately capable of maneuvering through it without considerable lack of speed. (I realize there are exceptions because some middle-age adults are quite focused upon involvement with operating computers and playing video games).However, I do agree with "Yeoman's" assessment that appreciating this documentary requires a sophisticated intellect. What I differ upon is that age upon which acquires it. Regardless, for an intellectual or perhaps even academic approach to "Lord of the Rings," this documentary does a fine job. It's well work watching more than once.(As an aside: I wish the public would recognize how Sir Ian McKellen's presence in the films and games have contributed the degree of acting and vocal acumen to the entire body of work. It's difficult to imagine another Gandalf who could be more convincing. Why is it that some of the world's most beloved characters and films have been taken for granted as if they were not an actor's body of work? For instance, Gregory Peck who went without a single Oscar).

Chris-742 This documentary is like a high school paper, written without preparation. "What are some of the archetypal character or events of Lord of the rings and give some simple examples of similar characters or events in history?" 4 hours, at least 5 pages, no aids. I think my problem with this film boils down to that the creators have taken the path of least resistance and no examples are given taking Tolkiens background into consideration. Examples of people given are Benjamin Franklin (not a bad choice, but a very American choice), Lewis and Clark (also a very American choice), Edmund Hillary and sherpa Tarkey (which happened after Tolkien wrote the books. Faramir's charge is compared to Picket's charge. But the charge only takes place in the movie and does not appear in the books. In short, whoever made this documentary seems not only not to have read the books, but seems to lack basic knowledge about Tolkien. The execution of the documentary is well done, but it's basis lacks thought. There are no insights into the mind nor world of Tolkien. So the grade for this documentary can only be an F with the added comment "Did you even read the books, it seems you only watched the movie." The other documentary (Fellowship of the ring) is much better. This one is for "lying down and avoiding" (A monthy python quote).

queeniejo-leoginger I bought this DVD as I enjoyed "Return of the King" so much that I went to the cinema 3 times and wanted a souvenir.I'm glad I didn't watch this lack lustre documentary first or I'd have not wished to see such a boring film ! A few clips from Return of The King are shown and some very unconvincing comparisons with real people from history are made. For example, Aragorn is compared with William Wallace.Other characters are compared with Churchill and Hitler amongst other figures in history. The only thought provoking insight was linking the dead marshes to World War One. If you like Lord of the Rings, wait for the DVD of Jackson's film.