Roll on Return of the King

Rating: 10/10 (2 January 2003)

Like most people who saw this film, I found it to be a very enjoyable experience. While it is not without some flaws overall it deserves the praise it has received. (Please excuse the spoilers ahead).
For those of you who found it a bit disjointed just remember that the film encompasses two major plot lines - events in Rohan and Frodo heads to Mordor - plus the minor one of Merry and Pippin's escapades. No matter how the director tries to fit them together it won't suit all viewers. Additionally, as the middle part of a trilogy it was always going to be difficult to make it stand on its own as well as the first. But just wait until 2004 when you can watch all three in a row....
For those of you who have made comments about film quality, the CGI used to overlay the digital Gollum over the actor Andy Cserkis, etc, I highly recommend getting the DVD extended edition pack that has two discs devoted to the making of the first film.
Just sit back and enjoy the action, scenery, music and adventure. Appreciate the scope of the movies and the effort made for realism (for example, two guys spent about 18 months full time just making suits of chainmail). Read the books and if possible watch FoTR again before you see TTT. Sure it is a long movie and slow in parts but what movie isn't. And don't get caught up with trying to compare it to other great movies (if you think the Godfather movies are the pinnacle of cinema excellence, fine, but they are not the LoTR trilogy and should not be rated against each other).
As for some of the other issues people have commented/complained about...
1. Faramir - I agree that Jackson was a bit harsh on him but I believe Tolkien himself was a bit generous towards him. Imagine you are the commander of military forces guarding your borders from huge evil and two little guys turn up carrying a powerful artifact that in the wrong hands would destroy your land. I think Faramir would have been suspicious of their motives (as he was at first in the book) and not basically say "off you go lads, here's some food, head due east to Mordor, you can't miss it - high mountains, volcanoes and a squillion orcs". Wait for the third movie to see him more in tune with the Faramir of the books. His change of heart and allowing the hobbits to leave is, I suspect, also part of setting the conflict with, and within, his father Denethor in the next book.
2. Shelob - don't worry she will be in the next movie. Gollum basically says so at the end of TTT. Who cares whether she was in the second book but not in the second movie.
3. Elves at Helm's Deep are a symbol of the wider conflict - Peter Jackson is trying to convey in the movie what was covered in a few lines in the books - namely that forces of evil were fighting elves, men and dwarves elsewhere while the fighting in Gondor and Rohan was occurring. I would not find it unusual if the third movie had dwarves appearing at the siege of Minas Tirith to further symbolise the alliance of the three races. The sequence with Elrond and Galdriel was necessary to explain why the elves would be at Helm's Deep.
4. Aragorn and Eowyn - this bit is basically showing Eowyn's infatuation with a powerful, handsome and noble man (which is touched upon in Tolkien's writings somewhere). Cliched? Perhaps, but in real life romance, when you look closely, is often cliched. Why should the movies be any different? I have to admit that the bit with Aragorn falling off the cliff is a bit unnecessary - perhaps the extended version might make it clearer.
5. Arwen and Aragorn - some found this theme slow and laboured. But remember she is considering giving up immortality for Aragorn, not just deciding what colour gossamer dress to wear that day. It is an integral theme to Tolkien's work.