Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy: Extended Edition
  • Alternative view 1 of The Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy: Extended Edition
  • Alternative view 2 of The Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy: Extended Edition

The Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy: Extended Edition

4.3 107
Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Ian Holm


See All Formats & Editions

Experience the theatrical versions of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in stunning high definition. Three DVDs featuring over six hours of bonus materials are also included, as are digital copies of each film.The second film in Peter Jackson's series of


Experience the theatrical versions of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in stunning high definition. Three DVDs featuring over six hours of bonus materials are also included, as are digital copies of each film.The second film in Peter Jackson's series of screen adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's internationally popular Lord of The Rings trilogy, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers literally begins where The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring ended, with the Fellowship splitting into three groups as they seek to return the Ring to Mordor, the forbidding land where the powerful talisman must be taken to be destroyed. Frodo (Elijah Wood), who carries the Ring, and his fellow Hobbit Sam (Sean Astin) are lost in the hills of Emyn Muil when they encounter Gollum (Andy Serkis), a strange creature who once carried the Ring and was twisted by its power. Gollum volunteers to guide the pair to Mordor; Frodo agrees, but Sam does not trust their new acquaintance. Elsewhere, Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) are attempting to navigate Fangorn Forrest where they discover a most unusual nemesis -- Treebeard (voice of John Rhys-Davies), a walking and talking tree-shepherd who doesn't much care for Hobbits. Finally, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), and Legolas (Orlando Bloom) arrive in Rohan to discover that the evil powers of Saruman (Christopher Lee) have robbed King Theoden (Bernard Hill) of his rule. The King's niece Eowyn (Miranda Otto) believes Aragorn and his men have the strength to defeat Saruman, his henchman Wormtongue (Brad Dourif), and their minions. Eowyn soon becomes infatuated with Aragorn, while he struggles to stay faithful to the pledge of love he made to Arwen (Liv Tyler). Gandalf (Ian McKellen) offers his help and encouragement as the Rohans, under Aragorn's leadership, attempt to face down Saruman's armies, but they soon discover how great the task before them truly is when they learn that his troops consist of 10,000 bloodthirsty creatures specially bred to fight to the death. Most of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was shot in tandem with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King during a marathon 18-month shooting schedule, overseen by Peter Jackson.Co-writer and director Peter Jackson continues his Oscar-winning, box-office blockbuster adaptation of the classic fantasy novel from author J.R.R. Tolkien with a second installment that plunges the fictional setting of Middle Earth into a vicious war. Welcome additions to the action in the sophomore adventure include the CG-created Gollum, moving front and center as a major character that's simply amazing in its ability to entertain and move the viewer emotionally. The most pathetic creature in the trilogy, he's a schizophrenic nightmare but heartbreakingly human and poignantly, dazzlingly realized by a combination of actor Andy Serkis's physical skill and Jackson's special effects experts. Gollum puts the similar Jar Jar Binks character of the second Star Wars trilogy to shame. Also thrilling are a climactic battle between Ents (living "trees") and the evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee) that brings to mind any number of breathtaking sequences from The Wizard of Oz (1939), and the final clash between humans and invading enemy forces at Helm's Deep, a lengthy but thrilling clash of bows and shields that recalls the superb fight sequences from Braveheart (1995). Less persuasive are some storytelling elements that fall victim to the filmmakers' effort to condense the story into a three-hour running time: several gaps in the action occur and a few developments are left unexplained, such as how the forces of Eomer (Karl Urban) grow from a few dozen to thousands, how the defenders of the realm of Gondor manage to defeat their attackers, why the Ringwraiths have suddenly switched mounts from horses to dragons (why did they use horses at all in the first film?) -- and why Tolkien felt the need to give every location, character, and object in his work at least three utterly confusing names (those who haven't read the books may be left wondering what the difference is between Eomer and Faramir or Gimli and Grima). However, the simple fact that a novel as dense and detailed as this one hasn't been turned into a labored bore is a miracle; that Jackson has fashioned such a triumphant success is a real artistic achievement. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) may be imperfect in its occasionally frustrated effort to squeeze every significant plot element into the mix, but it's a visual marvel and a definite raising of the artistic bar for its entire genre. No filmmaker will ever be able to create a sci-fi or fantasy epic again without comparison against it.New Zealand filmmaker Peter Jackson fulfills his lifelong dream of transforming author J.R.R. Tolkien's best-selling fantasy-epic into a three-part motion picture that begins with this holiday 2001 release. Elijah Wood stars as Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit resident of the medieval "Middle-Earth" who discovers that a ring bequeathed to him by beloved relative and benefactor Bilbo (Ian Holm) is in fact the "one ring," a device that will allow its bearer to manipulate dark powers and enslave the world. Frodo is charged by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to return the ring to Mount Doom, the evil site where it was forged millennia ago and the only place where it can be destroyed. Accompanying Frodo is a fellowship of eight others: his Hobbit friends Sam (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan), and Pippin (Billy Boyd); plus Gandalf; the human warriors Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean); Elf archer Legolas (Orlando Bloom); and Dwarf soldier Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). The band's odyssey to the dreaded land of Mordor, where Mount Doom lies, takes them through the Elfish domain of Rivendell and the forest of Lothlorien, where they receive aid and comfort from the Elf princess Arwen (Liv Tyler), her father Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett). In pursuit of the travelers and their ring are Saruman (Christopher Lee) -- a traitorous wizard and kin, of sorts, to Gandalf -- and the Dark Riders, under the control of the evil, mysterious Sauron (Sala Baker). The Fellowship must also do battle with an ogre, flying spies, Orcs, and other deadly obstacles both natural and otherwise as they draw closer to Mordor. Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (2001) was filmed in Jackson's native New Zealand simultaneously with its pair of sequels, The Two Towers (2002) and The Return of the King (2003).

Editorial Reviews

Barnes & Noble - Ed Hulse
J.R.R. Tolkien's fabled Ring trilogy, originally published in the 1950s, set a new standard for fantasy fiction -- and its Oscar-winning live-action adaptation does the same for movies of the sword-and-sorcery genre. Perhaps the most eagerly awaited fantasy film of all time and nearly five years in the making, The Fellowship of the Ring captures the spirit of Tolkien's Middle-earth saga far more faithfully than its millions of fans dared hope. (Ralph Bakshi offered an animated adaptation in 1978, but to a much less rousing response.) The story begins as elderly hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) relinquishes possession of his most valuable keepsake, a golden ring possessing magical powers, to his youthful heir, Frodo (Elijah Wood). Charged with casting the ring into the fires from which it was forged, the young hobbit begins an arduous trek across Middle-earth, accompanied by a sturdy band that includes his best friend, Sam Gamgee (Sean Astin), the mercurial wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), the haunted warrior Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the blustery dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), among others. Opposed by treacherous sorcerer Saruman (Christopher Lee) and the demonic emissaries of the Dark Lord, Sauron, this continuously embattled Fellowship makes its way slowly toward the cruel land of Mordor. Studded with remarkable action sequences enhanced by state-of-the-art computer effects, Fellowship is a veritable feast for eye and ear. Director Peter Jackson shot the film in his native New Zealand, where he found stunning, picturesque locations in which to set his scenes. These marvelous natural settings combine with the beautifully crafted sets, costumes, makeup, and props to convincingly bring Tolkien's mythical world to life. The actors, one and all, play their roles as if they were born to them; even such briefly seen stars as Cate Blanchett (elf queen Galadriel) and Liv Tyler (elf maiden Arwen) perform with panache. Fellowship departs from the sacred texts in a number of ways, but Jackson's movie replicates the trilogy's first book faithfully. A rousing adventure-fantasy that will delight Tolkien devotees and newbies alike, this is truly an unforgettable film -- one that will yield new pleasures with each viewing, and which therefore belongs in every video collection.

Product Details

Release Date:
New Line Home Video
[Wide Screen]
[Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround, Dolby Digital Surround EX]

Cast & Crew

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

The Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy: Extended Edition 4.3 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 107 reviews.
PrincessPea73 More than 1 year ago
My husband bought me this Extended Cut Set on Blu-Ray and I absolutely love them. They go so much more in depth about the story and explain a lot of things that were left to be simply understood in the original theatrical releases. Definitely worth the money for LOTR fans!!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This item is being sold as "Motion Picture Trilogy: Extended Edition," but if you type in the upc in froogle, it comes up as just the Motion Picture Trilogy (i.e., *not the Extended Edition). The extended edition has a different cover with large letters that say "EXTENDED EDITION." This item is just the theatrical version. Please correct this. My low rating reflects only this mislabeling, nothing further.
Vikki13 More than 1 year ago
The Lord of the Rings Movies is a very enjoyable series. Although a person cannot really truly value the movies if they did not read the books as well, there are a lot of things that were left out of the movies because if they left them in, then the movies would have been too long. (Even though they are already pretty long without the deleted scenes, which are amazing by the way) I watched all the movies first before reading the books, but there was a big enough gap between seeing the movies and reading the books, that I could fully appreciate all the books without that mindset that the books were ruining the movie. What surprised me was that the books went into so much more behind what we see on screen with the characters. There are a few scenes that are in a different order, as well as a few characters that are missing from the story. Of course a director is going to have to make some decisions on keeping or taking out certain things for the sake of the length of the movie. And Peter Jackson did an amazing job of taking this fictional world and bringing it to a screen in front of our eyes for our viewing pleasure. But, as is with most series, the books are almost always going to be better than the movies. It might be because we actually see the most fitting characters and the most fitting scenery in our heads and it is pleasing to us as an individual, while the director is just one person and they have to please an audience, and you can never please everyone. Or it is because Tolkien made an amazing series, and he put so much into it. He created his own language for the books, there are family trees for almost all of the characters, and an entire world with its own cycles of plants and animals. Either way, I cannot stress enough how important it is to read the books before you watch the movies. It will make that much of a difference in your experience and even though the books might take a little bit to start going, and at some parts, they might seem a bit tedious, but it definitely is so worth the experience. And you can legitimately say that you are a nerd, because you read The Hobbit, and the Lord of The Rings series. This review is part of a class assignment from a community college in California
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
If you purchased this edition be aware that it is only the THEATRICAL RELEAESE and not the Extended Edition. The Extended Edition has not yet been released, but will be. This is exactly what they did when they released the film the first time...
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Loved this movie and bought it on Blu-ray only to find it does not contain the new and extended scenes of the DVD release a couple of years ago. For those that haven't seen that version, this is amazing. The Blu-ray is great, but I grew to love those new and extended scenes and I miss them too much to enjoy this.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Lee27 More than 1 year ago
The Lord of the rings, in my opinion, is one of the best movies EVER. And the only way to make it better, is to see it in Blu-Ray. The storyline was excellent.Its basically were a hobbit named Frodo (think midget) finds a ring with enough power to destroy the world. So with the help of a wizard, warrior and other friends Frodo must take the ring to the Crack of Doom. Where it was created to destroy it. It was truly an epic film. And the acting was great. Even Elijah Wood was perfect for his part. Overall the storyline and the acting combined makes The Lord of the Rings one of the few movies that sucks me in time and time again. BUY YHIS MOVIE!!!!!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
DarthTyranus More than 1 year ago
amazing movies thank you peter jackson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
elliemacyn More than 1 year ago
A beautiful interpretation of a classic story, the extended edition may still leave a few things out of the original novels, but the film making and quality of the cast and script are wonderful. Certainly worth not only watching the extended editions, but checking out the commentaries from various cast and crew members as well!
Seraphyx More than 1 year ago
This review is being written as an assignment for a college English class I am taking at Crafton Hills College. The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was extremely well done considering it is a book to film adaptation. No movie, unless extremely lengthy, will be able to capture every nuance a book can contain. Even at the whopping three or so hours per film it still left out many, many details from the books. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy is likely the most successful series of films ever created, even despite the fact that the producers deliberately left out so many details from the books that fans of Tolkien may consider important and essential. Regardless, I think it was a great decision to leave out all of these details from the movie. Many friends I've talked to who absolutely love the movies can not get through the books because of the long winded descriptions for seemingly insignificant things like plants or trees or other random aspects of nature Tolkien decided to include in his work. So then, is it the author's fault for not being able to produce a work accessible to people in this day and age or is it man's fault for no longer being interested in what Tolkien saw such beauty in? I suppose this is up to the reader or viewer to decide; some may not see any problem with the extremely long and sometimes tedious to read descriptions Tolkien decides to include in his books, and others may not be able to get through them and put the books down permanently out of frustration. The latter is most often the case these days from my observations. The fact that movies can not encompass everything books can (yet) may have been a very, very good thing in the case of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I believe that the much more simplified version the movies are, compared to the books, are far better suited to the audiences of today. I don't think anyone would have sat through the movie with some of the long, and often boring monologues Tolkien has in his books. And although the movies are simplified in terms of detail, I believe they did an excellent job making it their own creation while keeping true to much of Tolkiens original works. Some things are absolutely necessary to be changed, for example plays, the actors are often over the top and overly dramatic so that the entire audience, not just the people in the front, can see and capture the same emotion the actor is feeling. If you had that same actor acting the same way in a movie as they did in the play, it would likely be considered terrible and over the top acting. For this reason I believe that the decisions to simplify characters, or change their personalities even if it's a bit drastic from the book, was a good decision. It is a completely different media and certain elements must be met to entertain the society of today.
Cody12 More than 1 year ago
I am doing this review for as an assignment for my English class. I am a student at a community college in California. For this class we had to read The Hobbit and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. We also watched the movie trilogy. These movies are amazing but I recommend reading the books first. Peter Jackson did an amazing job bringing Tolkien's world to film. Many people complain about Boromir and his lust for the ring throughout the movie compared to the Fellowship. From my point of view I thought Boromir's constant lust over the ring worked out well in the movie because if Peter Jackson was to do it word for word from the book then Boromir would seem like a good guy the whole time until he just changes his mind. One complaint I have, which is my fault, is having watched the movies first then reading the books was not a good idea. While reading the books all I could think about were the actors portraying the main characters like Frodo, Sam, Mary, Pippin, Gandalf, etc. I also kept expecting things from the movie to happen in the books that either never happened or happened at a different time. These movies and probably the new Hobbit movie coming out will go down in Tolkien history. One can get a feel for the world Tolkien has built by just watching these movies but by reading the books you feel part of the lore and part of his dream.
Dyck More than 1 year ago
This review is part of a California community college assignment. The class required that the students read The Hobbit and the three LOTR books, watch the Peter Jackson films, then analyze, compare and critique them. Adapting a book, or series of books, into a film can be an extremely daunting task. Filmmakers have had varying degrees of success with this over the years and the LOTR films are definitely one of the successes. Jackson has taken one of the most gargantuan fictional literary worlds and brought it to the screen in a manner that is able to please the general public and Tolkein purists alike. However, one cannot simply view only the films and claim to know Tolkein's work in depth. It is always necessary for a film to simplify the aspects of the book that it is based on. This is the only feasible way to bring a book to the big screen. That is fine, but much of the literary depth is lost in the film version. In the LOTR films the writers added more colloquial language to the dialogue (in lieu of Tolkein's pedantic original text) and many sequences in the film do not occur in the same order as they do in the books. Also, many characters are relegated to exaggerated emotional and behavioral dispositions. The most notable of these characters are Denethor and his sons Boromir and Faramir. Boromir's erratic behavior due to his lust for the ring is more intense in the film. Faramir's eventual resistance to the ring is portrayed far more honorably in the book and Denethor is reduced to a sneering coward in the films when he seemed to be more respectable in the books. In addition to this the characters of Legolas and Gimli seem to be increasingly reduced to comedy relief in the second and third films. This belies the depth that Tolkein bestowed upon them in his original text. I would go so far as to say that if someone really appreciates the films, then it is required to read the books to get the complete experience. It is not disputed that the LOTR series is one of the greatest literary works of the twentieth century and, although the films are good, no one should see the films without having read the books. Or you could do it in reverse order I suppose.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago