The Greatest Con Trick of the Age of Cinema

Rating: Null/10 (1 January 2003)

Now I quite enjoyed 'Fellowship of the Ring'. I only saw it twice because I took my son the second time, but I have seen 'The Two Towers' only once, and am only likely to see it once. I was conned by the initial charm of the first film, but by the time of this second epic, the novelty has worn off for me. Now I understand why they only make Bond films every two or three years. One year was not enough distance to put between films like this, and the fact that they made all three at the same time also doesn't help. I know it's a trilogy but how many years were there between the three Godfather movies? Obviously the vast majority of punters totally disagree with me, but I see that the next Harry Potter movie will not be shown until 2004, which is sensible. Even that follow-up seemed too hot on the heels of the first film, but they've got an excuse. The actors will age. I don't really see the same problem arising with 'Rings' so there's no excuse. Anyway, at the end of the day, I would say that this movie in particular is vastly over-rated. I hate the way that Liv Ullman is on so many advertising posters and yet her role is so miniscule, if you blink you'll miss her. I was not particularly impressed by the battle scenes, because I'm not a great fan of CG effects. If you compare it to 'Zulu' it pales in comparison. I doubt if I will bother with the final instalment because these movies all have the same problem. They have to decide whether to take themselves fully seriously; or just be more fun. This film is neither gripping realism nor fulfilling fantasy. It's caught in the middle, with Gollom becoming not frightening enough to look like something from a Gothic vampire movie; and not pleasant enough to become your buddy. A disappointment. For trees with attitude, I'll stick to Macbeth or the 'Wizard of Oz' thank you very much....