How could anyone think this one was better than the first? (Spoilers, but nothing not already revealed in the trailers)

Rating: Null/10 (25 February 2003)

Don't get me wrong, I think THE TWO TOWERS is a good movie. I suppose, if you're tolerant, you might even call it as good as THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. But how could Time magazine run a cover calling it *better* than its predecessor? Its strengths are the same strengths as the first movie's. Its weaknesses, on the other hand, are pretty well its own.
Let's review those strengths. Strong, charismatic performance by Ian McKellen as Gandalf? Check. Grand, sweeping vistas of the Middle Earth terrain? Check. Epic, savage battle scenes? Check. Dark, brooding cinematography? Check. Danger and the theme of struggle within oneself against the temptations of power? Check. Yep, we have a good movie here; it would take a lot of incompetence to ruin all those elements.
But by gosh, sometimes it looks like Jackson tried. Despite sacrificing much more of the story than the first one did, this movie covers less ground; given more than a chapter's head start, it fails to make it anywhere near the final chapter.
I find it amazing that so many people focus on what was done to Faramir's character, when far worse was done elsewhere. In fact, I liked what Jackson did to Faramir's character. Tolkien's Faramir is insufferable; give me Samwise's honest humility any day over Faramir's how-noble-were-my-ancestors-before-they-bred-with-lesser-men posturing. I like the fact that Jackson's Faramir feels the same temptation as his brother, but unlike Boromir, he is able to overcome it. Gimli is the one who's been really let down, being completely reduced to a laughingstock. There were a few laughs at his expense in the first movie, but he was also clearly a warrior and a hero. Now he's been made into a useless encumbrance for the sake of comic relief.
Both TFOTR and TTT make significant changes from the book. But in the first movie these were well-considered changes, omitting the inessentials and in some cases improving considerably on the book. For one instance, Jackson's Boromir is a much more sympathetic tragic hero than the boor that Tolkien gave us; for another, Jackson's choice to have Aragorn deliberately part from Frodo, afraid that his love for Gondor would tempt him to steal the Ring, is far more dramatic than the fiat of fate Tolkien used.

In TTT, the changes are not nearly so well thought out. Consider the decision to have Theoden be directly possessed by Saruman. Okay, that could have worked. But Jackson overlooks the fact that this possession makes Grima the Wormtongue totally superfluous. Grima's only job, influencing the King, is no longer necessary, and his presence in the court puts Saruman's plans at risk of discovery. Either Grima should have been edited out completely, or the possession business should have been canned. Also, since Jackson retains the scene where Grima is expelled, he should also have retained Tolkien's far superior version of it, where Grima is given a chance to redeem himself and throws it away.
In the first movie, Arwen sensibly appears only when she is relevant to the action. Her love scenes with Aragorn are well woven into the course of the story. Here, while her scenes are quite well done in themselves, they are sometimes intrusive, and in several cases it is obvious that they should have been saved for the third movie. Arwen's return to a desolate Lothlorien is one of the most tragic, heart-rending scenes Tolkien ever wrote, a perfect conclusion to the story of the Third Age. To anticlimactically stick this scene into the middle of the second book is unforgivable.
Finally, I object to the Ents being reduced to incompetents who don't even notice what Saruman is doing to their trees until a Hobbit shoves it under their noses.
The only possible claim TTT has to superiority over the TFOTR is Andy Serkis' Gollum. I was terrified of getting another Jar-Jar Binks; instead Gollum is one of the best CGI characters I've ever seen, very Hobbit-like while still being beastish. Serkis makes Gollum menacing and pitiable at the same time. He is probably the truest character to Tolkien's vision in either of the two movies.
So, take THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, slow it down, remove Sean Bean and Ian Holm, two of the best actors in it, greatly reduce Ian McKellen's role, and replace the well-judged changes from Tolkien's story with modifications that appear to have been thought up at the last minute. You now have THE TWO TOWERS. Is it good? Yes. Is it an improvement? No.
Rating: **Â½ out of ****.
Recommendation: See it in the theater, but don't set your expectations too high.