Just as great as the first one

Rating: 9/10 (19 December 2002)

I saw this movie yesterday, and already I've overheard one comment from the theater I was at, as well as a comment from a workmate, who said that they were disappointed with something(s) about this movie. Whether it'd be that it didn't follow the book EXACTLY, or it just wasn't as good as the first. I understand that it doesn't follow the book exactly, but I beg to differ as far as it not being as good as the first movie.
Sure, it doesn't follow the book exactly. Neither did the last one. In fact, as far as I know, there were probably just as many differences from the book in this movie as there were in the last. For example, in the book of "The Fellowship of the Ring," Gandalf takes many years to get back to the Shire(wasn't it like 50 years?) before he tells Frodo to set off on his quest to destroy the One Ring. Also, the ENTIRE Tom Bombadil scene was cut from the movie - including the scene where they obtain the swords to kill the Nazgul where they meet the Barrow-wights (I assume that perhaps the swords that Aragorn gave the hobbits at Weathertop are the swords that kill the Nazgul, but I can't be certain). Also, dialogue was switched around from what it was in the book, like someone in the movie saying a line that was originally someone else's line in the book. Or the same person who said a line in the book says it in the movie but at a different point in the story(a.k.a. Gandalf's "all we need to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us" speech and his story of Gollum; in the book it was at Bag End, but in the movie it was in Moria.) Also, we never see Gandalf talk to Radagast the Brown (another wizard). And, Boromir dies at the end of the movie, whereas he died at the beginning of the second book. Lastly, they never expanded on the fact that Merry and Pippin knew about the One Ring before they found out that Frodo had it, and also they never went to Farmer Maggot's house. And I know there were more changes.
And what changes were made to "The Two Towers' story in the movie? Faramir was meaner, they didn't go to Gondor, we don't see Saruman wandering the woods, Elves were at Helm's Deep, Wormtongue doesn't make it to Isengard until after the Ents flooded it, Arwen was in it, Eowen went with them, and certain things were pushed back until the third movie. There were a few more, but there were not many more changes than what was in the first book. And that's not what gets me. What gets me is that people complain about these changes, and NONE of them were bad! The movie still worked very well! It still stayed 90-95% true to the book(if you got that percentage on a term paper - that's an A grade my friends!). The only reason anyone would see these changes as bad is because "It wasn't in the books!"

Come on! This movie was fantastic! It's still very true to the book, Gollum was cool and funny, Gimli was hilarious, and the battles were so epic in scale it's not even funny. The Ents were just as I had pictured them - both character and visual-wise. The conflict with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum was perfect. Helm's Deep was terrific and very epic in scope. And the destruction of Isengard was just amazing. We really got a great picture.
I think ultimately when one goes to a movie and comes out loving it, they will build up the sequels to such high expectations that they end up becoming disappointing to the individuals that make such idiotic accusations. Why not just expect the sequels to NOT be as good, since it's impossible to capture lightning in a bottle - and then come out not so disappointed?