Awful at best

Rating: 5/10 (2 January 2003)

This can't get any worse. After seeing LOTR I and enjoying it immensely, I was eager to watch the sequel. Unfortunately, the movie does not live up to my expectations for hundreds of reasons.
1. Too many in-battle humorous(?) one-liners. The dwarf is a Rambo wannabe
2. Horrible acting with the exception of 2-3 characters
3. A Golum (forget the spelling) with clear sexual abuse problems during its childhood. Do we really care so much about the Golum?
4. Little annoying speeches about the ecological disasters involved. Is this a green party brochure? This is Good vs Evil. Who cares about the trees cut down?
5. Too many characters so the film emphasizes on none of them. The end result? The viewer does not really care what happens in the last battle. Personally, I really wanted the Uruk-hai (or whatever) warriors to completely destroy the castle. It is a typical silvester-tweety (again sorry if the spelling is not correct) situation. Why the cat can't eat the damn bird is beyond me.
6. Hundreds of logical holes (I have not read the book and don't plan to). Sharuman is inside the king, controlling him. So why the need for the "advisor" (one of the best characters portrayed)? And why don't they cut his head when they have the chance? Who would really spare his life? And what are the defenses (catapults etc) of the castle?
And last but not least, the editing is absolutely horrible. It's just a sequence of cut-out scenes that do not make any sence. Anyway, 3/10 for the soundtrack, make-up, graphics and scenery alone. All the rest should amount to zero. (rated 8/10+ LOTR I)