If you haven't got your Elf, what have you got? A better movie!

Rating: Null/10 (10 November 2003)

I am in the "purist" camp and find Jackson's work to be almost unwatchable. I have read the entire Lord Of The Rings sequence at least 20 or 30 times through my late childhood to adulthood, and for all it's flaws it is still a masterpiece.
It is unfilmable, in Jackson's own words, so he has set himself up for failure. For all his technical prowess, and the amazing achievements by his creative team, this work lacks the depth of Tolkein's vision, and instead of requiring of us some imagination, it blinds us with special effects.
Omissions are to be expected in a work of this scale - you can't take such a large tome and condense it, even into three movies, without losing some of the plot. But why make up plots that aren't there?
In Jackson's middle earth, men are weak, prone to corruption, that is why Isildur takes the ring for himself and that is a theme that Jackson seems to catch onto and run with. Why? There are other themes of Tolkein's which were valid and valuable and would still speak to a modern audience.
I appreciate that Tolkein's work lacked strong female voices, and have no problem with Arwen's character being built upon and extrapolated to a degree - her "rescue" of Frodo in Fellowship is quite thrilling I suppose, but this whole dream sequence in TTT with a whinging Elf princess and her overbearing father - characters I don't recognise whatsoever from Tolkein's work - add nothing to the story.
The sacking of Isengard by the Ents brought a tear of joy to my eye, but otherwise I found this middle movie dull, unimaginative, and very much a victim of "hollywood spin".
Let's hope the Return Of The King offers some satisfaction.