Overwhelming AND Underwhelming?

Rating: 8/10 (15 January 2003)

Give a man a tower and he'll see across a kingdom; give a man two towers and he'll be blinded by special effects.
I'll admit I've never read the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which may render my commentary meaningless to diehard fans of the series. However, I'll give Peter Jackson loads of credit for his job on the first two adaptations. Thus far, I can't say I've seen any other film positing itself as an "epic" lately and actually FELT like I was seeing an epic. From the hordes of armies and the bombastic, poetic dialogue to the expanses of New Zealand that serve as the beautiful, majestic Middle Earth, Jackson and his dedicated creative team have done a superb job in recreating a world that I know many people love dearly.
Unfortunately for me, as a film, The Two Towers (and to some extent The Fellowship of the Ring before it) leaves me wanting for something. It's hard to believe because there's so much THERE -- drama, archetype, huge battle sequences, lush cinematography, incredible special effects -- but I came away from the film feeling empty, like I'd just seen a gorgeous work of art that didn't speak to me personally. Some might say this is because I haven't read the books; I claim the opposite. I think what I'm missing is a sense of inclusion, of characters, of personal moments. These are the things that make me "connect" with any film, and which I didn't see in The Two Towers. If I sense them lacking, and I haven't even read the books, I can only imagine how half-empty the serious fans of the story are, in that they probably come into the theater expecting every nuance of Tolkien's 1000-odd pages to come to life onscreen and leave wondering where all their favorite moments were.
The first film had the luxury of being based around interpersonal relationships among the Fellowship members, and Frodo's reluctance to be a hero, Bilbo's mixed feelings about the ring, Gandalf's weary wisdom, etc. All character traits, character moments -- building blocks of conflict and story. Here, the conflict is primarily external -- Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli must help the people of Rohan defend themselves from a swarm of orc soldiers as a show of force, good standing strong against the onslaught of evil. The character moments, particularly those between Aragorn and nearly anyone else, feel forced and artificial primarily because they occur opposite underdeveloped characters seemingly introduced solely to further the plot or embody elements of the theme (Rohan's king in particular) rather than being integral parts of the story. Why Rohan? Why not any other city, any other characters? Why would Aragorn be so easily swayed from his original love as to develop eyes for another? It seems like a plot device, not a natural occurrence.
Even the comedic moments, especially those between Legolas and Gimli, are unnatural. The elf and dwarf are reduced to comedic foils, buddy characters, recipients of exposition and mood-lightening one-liners. Surely the bravest representatives of their races can do more than play second fiddle to Aragorn, yet they're given no chance here. They fade into the background, except for gratuitous and suspiciously out-of-tone (and character) comments and actions (Legolas on a medieval snowboard?).
Finally, there's the redundancy and disinterest of the alleged central plot, that of Frodo, Sam and Gollum transporting the ring to Mount Doom. Never before has the main conflict of a story taken a backseat to a subplot (Aragorn and the defense of Helm's Deep) and been so welcome. Every time the film cut back to Frodo I became increasingly bored. It may be because Elijah Wood is reduced to playing a primarily one-note character at this point, given that his rational thought and will are eroding throughout the tale. Or maybe it's the frustration I felt at seeing them so close to gates of Mordor, only to have them decide to go COMPLETELY AROUND the main entrance to approach from a "hidden entrance," which smacks of plot device. Call it theme; I call it flat story. And I'll say nothing of the rest of their end of the film, which features no conflicts we haven't already seen, paired with characters we're asked to care about prematurely, except that their final scene onscreen is a mirror image of the Frodo-Sam bonding moment at the end of Fellowship -- are there no fresh angles to this plotline?
The Merry and Pippin subplot exists solely to topple another subplot, the tower of Sauruman. I'm sure the themes involved were more clearly stated in the book; here, they feel tacked-on. The film could have existed without them and been perfectly engaging, if not moreso, since we'd have no momentum-killing cuts from Helm's Deep to the langorous Ents, talking (for comic relief).
The special effects are remarkable. The detail is commendable. The movie as a whole is impressive. But the attention to detail cannot overcome what for me is a lack of basic plot and character, deficiencies that hamper the aftertaste of the film. As everyone knows, special effects will never be able to replace a solid, coherent, emotionally engaging story, which the original trilogy likely is and which seems to be at least partially lost in the translation to the screen.