From the book I thought 'Huh, that's pretty much how hobbits would describe and elephant...", but in the movie, instead of elephants, they have elephant-like weird super giant (with extra bigness) CGI things with lots and lots of tusks...for the life of me I can't find a plausible reason for it, appart from the notion that the crew smoke too much of the hobbit's weed.

Hey, I got a low point: The oiliphaunts.

From the book I thought 'Huh, that's pretty much how hobbits would describe and elephant...", but in the movie, instead of elephants, they have elephant-like weird super giant (with extra bigness) CGI things with lots and lots of tusks...for the life of me I can't find a plausible reason for it, appart from the notion that the crew smoke too much of the hobbit's weed.

I agree. I always thought of oiliphaunts as regular elephants. I just can't seem them as something weird. Remeber, the Hobbits talk about them is wonder from children's tales.

It actually disappointed me at the time, because I liked the idea that one of the exotic mythical monsters of their day was just a normal animal we know today; sort of a link to the past, as it were.

Absolutely loved it, except for those two admittedly minor points.

Absolutely loved it, except for those two admittedly minor points.

Oops, make that three points!

Well, I've got one of them in the High Point list, so I'll only count two. :)

How about the pointless Galadriel cameo in the middle?

The oliphaunts also bothered me, I figured, aren't NORMAL elephants overly huge to hobbits?

The oliphaunts also bothered me, I figured, aren't NORMAL elephants overly huge to hobbits?

The oliphaunts are described in the book as having great towers built upon their backs, so I always figured they'd be larger than elephants.

"Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to him, a grey clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mūmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty ... The ruins of what seemed a very war-tower lay upon his heaving back, smashed in his furious passage through the woods;and high upon his neck still desperately clung a tiny figure -- the body of a mighty warrior, a giant among the Swertings."

P. 341, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Book IV, Chapter 4, "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbits"

"Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to him, a grey clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes, but the Mūmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty ... The ruins of what seemed a very war-tower lay upon his heaving back, smashed in his furious passage through the woods;and high upon his neck still desperately clung a tiny figure -- the body of a mighty warrior, a giant among the Swertings."

That's not a drunken hobbit, that's J.R.R. Tolkien.

Like you quoted: Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes...

But whatever.

shouldn't it be "Gandalf the White" in the Credits

It certainly should. Yes, I used cut and paste from the review of the first. I'll fix that shortly.

. . . I'll give you a bloody low point. How aboout the total distruction of Faramir's character? How about the invention of the scene at Osgiliath with the winged Nazūl? How about the invention of Aragorn's little near-death experience? How about the underuse of the Ents?

I'll admit that the movie was good, but I don't see how you can give it such a high score after the butchering of the original story. If you love the original works, you can't say there were no low points.

It's one thing to cut scenes like Tom Bombadil. It's quite another to invent new scenes and to completely wreck characters.

There were, however, things that really didn't sit well with me.
Gimli's comic relief wasn't TOO bad...I noticed that although he at times had trouble keeping up, he was quite often right on their heels. it irked me though that they kept insinuating he was clumsy....dwarves are NOT clumsy. clumsy makes you DEAD in a mine.

The addition of scenes at osgiliath...well, they were irritating and more or less blew faramir's character....BUT in the end it all turned out well. he let them go and they got back on the path. No big deal...but I can't seem to figure out WHY for the life of me it was necessary. It really just added a few million dollars worth of effects and ten or fifteen minutes of time that could have been better spent elsewhere. such as actually getting to the end of the book!!!!

Same goes for aragorn's near death experience. That's all I have to say abou that.

now this is my REAL bitch. Tbe beginning of the battle at helm's deep. "oh no, we're all going to die, we've got nothing here but farmers and children but WAIT! Here comes a battalion of elves!". I'm sorry...NO. The Rohirrim are ALL warriors, even down to the farmers. They all know how to use a sword - and there was only approx. half of the army out and away. They had plenty of people, and everyone thought they'd be fine until they saw the size of the army. even the explosion (which came through the BACK of the mountain, not the front - though I'll forgive that one) was taken care of pretty easily. and there were NEVER any elves present!!! except legolas....sigh. oh - one last thing - the spell on theoden. I'm sorry, but I completely agree with whoever said that it was much more interesting to think of him as paralyzed by an evil advisor. and the casting WAS perfect. Anyway. Thanks for putting up with my rant. All the other things I can really overlook - and even these things are...well....not SO bad (especially when you consider the other movie versions that are out there. go find the animated LOTR Live action/animated mix CRAP and see what I mean)

Did anyone else think Gollum looked a little too human/hobbitish? Gollum is supposed to be a little scarier/uglier looking; as it was, he just looked like a starvation victim. I saw on TV that they redesigned Gollum to make him more sympathetic, after the fine performance of the actor (who did voice and motion-capture). Maybe my knowing this made me more aware of it, but Gollum just looked too "nice" for one whose whole body has been reshaped/corrupted by evil. Idunno, maybe it's just the lack of greenish pallor that gets me. Anyone else feel this way?

Kindof. But, at the same time, I think they created a character that can go from cute and pitiable Smeagol to ugly and very nasty Gollum. Smeagol's argument with himself showed that very clearly. (I loved that scene, BTW.)

Did anyone else think Gollum looked a little too human/hobbitish? Gollum is supposed to be a little scarier/uglier looking; as it was, he just looked like a starvation victim. I saw on TV that they redesigned Gollum to make him more sympathetic, after the fine performance of the actor (who did voice and motion-capture). Maybe my knowing this made me more aware of it, but Gollum just looked too "nice" for one whose whole body has been reshaped/corrupted by evil. Idunno, maybe it's just the lack of greenish pallor that gets me. Anyone else feel this way?

So, we have Boromir in part 1, Gollum in part 2. I wonder which character Peter jackson will do right by in part 3. Denethor? I think that's the only new major character we have.

Did anyone else think Gollum looked a little too human/ hobbitish? Gollum is supposed to be a little scarier/uglier looking; [...] maybe it's just the lack of greenish pallor that gets me. Anyone else feel this way?