Now This Is Where I Get Kind of Negative

Rating: 6/10 (22 March 2007)

I treated my first viewing of the first Lord of the Rings film, The Fellowship of the Ring, as an obligation as a movie buff. If a movie hits it big, I feel obligated to see it, because people don't trust your opinion once they find that you've seen so many movies, so you claim, but you haven't seen Lord of the Rings. Before the second time I saw the first Lord of the Rings film, I said that fantasy and sci-fi hardly ever slay me, much less those grand epic battle films, but I liked very much The Fellowship of the Ring, and have cleaned my palette since then with Roman epics, fantasy films, and others in that vein, especially the ones with extensive running times, because those feel bigger and more grandiose. So I decided to, extremely late in the game, complete the already classic trilogy, and upon watching this second one, with my newfound optimism with its placements in genres and subject matter, I somehow felt a mixture of my feelings upon watching the first film the first time, with great cynicism and obligation, and the way I felt the second time.
I wrote in my review way back when I re-watched this film's predecessor, "Despite having never read a syllable of any of J.R.R. Tolkien's work and knowing jack about elves, halflings, hobbits, and orcs, I was perfectly able to appreciate Jackson's passionate adaptation. It is an epic with effective moments of suspense, atmosphere and action. No, I am not a fan of the dialogue that, to me, plagues the majority of fantasy and sci-fi films. You know, the pseudo- medieval, artificially dramatic semantics that can very easily tune me out of a film because of how wooden even the finest actor can't help but be when speaking that way. And no, the wardrobe of these films don't do much for me, either. However, these components come with the territory, and I can tell that recollection of the movie will carry on and taper off in a span of days, which is a good sign." I should've felt that way about its sequel, but unfortunately I did not. The same old cynicism and anticipation for the final credits returned from all that time ago when I first saw the first film.
The dialects and rhetoric did aggravate me this time. I could not get past them this time around. I simply couldn't reach a logical conclusion as to why people in these films speak in such ridiculous ways that I've never heard of anyone from any culture speaking before. For instance, no one uses contractions, never once saying "didn't" or "can't." This is a small example. When things like this come to mind when listening to these characters, I only begin to wonder why they speak this way. Why do some characters speak in variations of English accents and others speak in American ones? Is this a question answered in the books? Perhaps I should've read them before seeing these films, but many fans have yet to read them, so I figured I would be fine. Does one have to go through such an effort to enjoy a film? An adaptation is not meant to be delivered in a way where the audience is expected to reference the book. But, for the sake of the film's logic, I hope that there is reason given in the books for Middle Earth being so ambiguous in its dialect and rhetoric uses. The biggest, and perhaps most legitimate, complaint of mine is the completely unrealistic way I've spoken of but haven't yet explained. You know what they do: They begin speaking very loudly, then come very close to the listener's face and begins speaking in a whisper, then walks away as if it's not natural to expect a response from them. And the listener simply stands, studious and greatly effected by their words. I could go on and on, but in the interest of time, I'll move on.
The battle sequences were surprisingly unimpressive to me. There was no intensity. The camera-work had a very point-and-shoot style. The dwarf's moments during the climactic battle, his heroic comic relief, is very corny and unneeded. As I watch, I see how everything is a soundstage mechanism. I felt that the violence in the first film was much better portrayed.
What I liked about this film was the plot strand involving Gollum, Frodo, and Sam. I felt compassion for Gollum, an uneasy, not entirely entrusted compassion, and enjoyed his development as a point of mystery between sympathetic character and antagonist. I also liked the cinematography outside of the battle sequences. Just as I did in the first movie, I love the atmosphere depicted in the fictitious villages and locales, and I love the Gothic and extravagant use of lighting. During the climax, even though I was disappointed in how unriveted I was in the battle, I enjoyed the concept of all the culminations of all joined characters from all plot strands progressed over the course of three hours finally clashing together.
I gave this movie every chance when my natural proclivities were against it. I was assuredly paying attention, which didn't help me: Once Faramir's party reaches Anduin, one of Gondor's people says Mordor's seized the eastern side. So how do they get to the western side? If they use the sewer that Faramir later sends Frodo and Sam into, why did he explain to them what those sewers were? They'd have seen them already, just like me, who doesn't have to see this movie anymore. And for that I'm thankful. I didn't dislike this film, but I would add The Fellowship of the Ring to my collection and refuse to allow this sequel. I simply don't think I could watch it again. I hope the third one is the astonishing achievement it's cracked up to be.