Hugely disappointing!!

Rating: 1/10 (18 December 2002)

I had some real concerns during the last half of The Fellowship of the Rings about how unrelentingly gruesome, dark, and finally tortuous the movie was. Jackson never gave us a break. Think about it: we go through Moria with Gandalf's apparent death; there's no joy in Lothlorien; and then the agonizing-to-watch death of Boromir. In the book, Tolkien had us (and the characters) relax and wonder in Lothlorien. Then following the breakup of the fellowship, he gave us this funny scene with Sam swimming after Frodo, who'd just taken off in the canoe, even though they both knew he couldn't swim. It was a place to laugh with them at the great friendship they had. Did Jackson give Tolkien his due, as one of the greatest storywriters of all time? Would he simply use common sense, and know that the audience needed something cheerful to leave the movie with. No!! He gives us a slow-motion near-death experience with Samwise. Yuck!! So my worries kept coming back at me all year.
Even so, with spectacular special effects in Moria, and some great story adjustments (with Aragorn, in particular), I was very happy overall with The Fellowship of the Ring.
Unfortunately, The Two Towers shows Jackson at his worst. Not only is this movie unrelenting in being dark in appearance and in tone (Gimli provides a few--far too few--upbeat moments), but now the story "adjustments" are way out in left field, and terribly done. As a huge Tolkien fan, I won't be able to forgive Jackson with this movie. I give the movie only 5/10; as a Tolkien fan, I can say that it is only just bearable to watch.
Gollum was truly terrible. Comparisons to the BBC radio production-- Gollum is incredibly well done--leave us wondering how Andy Serkis could have landed the role in this movie. There is very little range in his voice. The animation, perhaps predictably (can anyone say Jar Jar Binks?), does not help at all. The primary problem, as with the movie overall, is the nearly complete lack of humor in Gollum's characterization; he comes off as completely unlikable-I find it hard to believe that anyone could even feel pity for him. Jackson seems intent on making everything as gloomy and downcast as possible. Very slow pacing doesn't help.
SPOILERS
In the first movie, Ian McKellen was incredibly strong in his performance as Gandalf. Here he gets very little to work with, and Bernard Hill as Theoden is a miserable substitute. Hill's completely unnoteworthy performance was given no help with the screenplay. Theoden is written in as a very weak character, hardly a King to admire or care for. For some reason, Jackson decided all the other main characters should show weakness as well. Aragorn is weak, not as a warrior, but in his relationship with Arwen. In the first movie, this was somewhat acceptable as an excuse Jackson invented to explain why Aragorn had not assumed his heritage as the true king. Aragorn's weakness there also helped in contrasting the strength of Arwen, a very nice update from Tolkien. But in the Two Tower's, Jackson destroys all with Arwen losing faith in her own decisions and love. So much that was positive in the first movie was destroyed here. Dada says go to the Grey Havens, being mortal will be too tough for you, and off she goes! > Faramir?!?! What the heck did Jackson think he was doing here. This whole part of the movie takes a complete departure from Tolkien. One of the main points of Tolkien's Faramir was to show that the wizard in Gandalf and the Numenor in Aragorn still existed in the men of Gondor. Faramir was a promise that although many good things might fade away, perhaps even better things can come through to the future. The depiction of Faramir in the Two Towers was a final nail in the coffin for me. If my family had not been with me, I might have gotten up and left the theater at that point.
These fatal flaws in the screenplay were only compounded by some true silliness in the action. The powerful Nazgul has a mighty flying stead (dragon-thing?) that is cowed by a single arrow, and apparently just flies away! Please!!! Mr. Jackson, I've read Tolkien, I _know_ Tolkien, and trust me, you are NO Tolkien!!!! Cut the super-crappy story changes!!!!!!!
Jez, I really gotta calm down...
The only part of the movie that I thought was reasonably well done was Treebeard. His voice and animation were very good.
But did Jackson slow down and give us a moment with Treebeard in his cave serving the Ent water to Merry and Pippin? No. That might have broken the dark, somber, unrelenting tone of the movie. And was Jackson satisfied with how Tolkein did the Entmoot and the finale at Helm's Deep? No. For no reason at all, he changed both, to the very huge detriment of his movie (it sure as heck is no longer Tolkien's in any way, shape or form!). The point of the Ents and Helm's Deep was to show us that men were not strong enough to defeat Saruman, much less Sauron. After Helm's Deep, we _knew_ that Gondor would have no chance against Sauron; only Frodo could save the day. Instead, Jackson wants us to believe that if Gandalf can ride out and gather up a few hundred men, anything can happen (what the hey, Aragorn, Theoden, and a couple other riders can simply ride out through the gates and brush thousands of Orcs right off the battlements like a knife through butter!).
Oh well. This particular fan will stay faithful to Tolkien. Jackson is no longer in that realm, and should not be forgiven. How depressing...