Good, but not great.

Rating: Null/10 (14 January 2003)

Unlike the last Tolkien film Jackson made, on this one, he doesn't adhere to the "show, don't tell" principle, and there are numerous (and rather annoying) ad-libs and editions to the plot. Without attempting to sound too much like a Tolkien fanatic, I have to take issue with a few parts (which, while not disturbing the main plot threads, nevertheless change the tone of the overall story) ... so, if you haven't seen it, stop reading this now:
Okay, people who haven't yet seen it looking away? Hey, a few of you are cheating - so look away already ...

The trip to Helm's Deep, after the evacuation of Rohan - there was no battle. It seemed less like an interesting plot addition and more of a ham-fisted attempt to make the show more exciting (which is, quite honestly, unnecessary - the story is already pretty damned interesting).

The changes in characterization of Sam and Frodo were also rather unnecessary. Sam and Frodo both understand Gollum's true nature, and while tolerating him - neither trusts him - and the film fails to reflect their accurate understanding of the broken and unredeemed character that Gollum is, in pursuit of some mealy "everyone can be redeemed" moralizing. Get over it. Some are evil by design, some by accident, Gollum happens to be one destroyed by his own moral weakness - and the film fails to accurately convey that. Frodo is also not so much seduced by the power of the ring, but more driven to despair - he is pure in spirit, but the nature of the ring begins to corrupt and destroy the hope that he brings with him - the very hope that will see him through the bitter end. His apparent willingness to surrender the ring to the Nazgul at Osgilliath (who thought that one up, anyway?) is completely bogus, and does not properly reflect Frodo's true nature - the humble servant, charged with an almost impossible task, but willingly accepting of his duty, and willing to see it done, despite what it may cost him.

As for Faramir - again, the screenplay fails to accurately convey that he is quite different from his brother; his brother was ambitious and proud. Faramir is humble and honourable - he knows what must be done, and is not arrogant like his brother, who assumed that the power of the ring could be turned against its master - a mistake which cost him his life. Tolkien generally does not allow his characters a morally ambiguous fate, and by portraying Faramir as cut of the same cloth as his brother, it opens the possibility for him to be similarly corrupted by the same thing, and eventually to suffer the same fate. This is quite simply not true, and to do so would ruin one of the finest of Tolkien's characters, and distort the story.

The Ents, too, are never unsure of what must be done; they understand their fate, should they fail to act, and they recognize that they, too, must struggle against evil, even to a bitter end. The cheesy pseudo-green moralizing is an irritating distraction.

The sappy love triangle between Eowyn and Aragon is pointless, and smacks of the kind of phony romanticism that has made Hollywood famous.

However, I will say that those complaints notwithstanding, the film still manages to come together quite spectacularly - especially the battle of Helm's Deep (the appearance of the Elves aside). Jackson manages to portray very well the almost insurmountable odds the people of Rohan face, and their courage and indomitability even in the face of certain death.
So ... on the whole, a decent job - but not as good a depiction as the first installment. I sincerely hope that the screenwriters don't take further liberties, and create an ambiguous mish-mash of cloying sentimentality and cheap aphorisms for the sake of a bigger audience. I think it rather presumptuous for screenwriters to assume that they can tell a better story than one of the best.