Go See It! Fascinating Expansion from Fellowship of the Ring

Rating: 10/10 (19 December 2002)

This is an awesome movie. I've seen it twice now, and I'll probably see it twice more before it leaves the theatres.
Part two continues the outstanding work done on Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. There is a bit more liberty taken with the plot in this one, but with good pacing and balance. The book tends to drag quite a bit in the second volume, as very long plot lines are developed, and the movie does a very good job of keeping things moving with both action and plot development.
The special effects are state of the art, and very creative. The Ents were particularly well done. Wargs, which look more like the hyenas in "The Lion King" than anything else, were quite good as well. The flying Nazgul didn't quite fly right, but was otherwise very realistic. Gollum is heart-wrenchingly pathetic, and utterly believable.
The cinematography is actually better in this movie than the first, if you can believe it, and the acting shows at least as much depth. Go see it in the theatre!
Don't sit in the front rows for this one, unless you are not prone to motion sickness. There are *many* full-speed, full-screen action shots that are breathtaking, but could be rough on your inner ear if you are up front.
There are some surprises in here for Tolkien fans. The writers worked some new things in for Aragorn, presumably to make the relationships with Eowyn and Arwen develop well on-screen. The new twists work, and are like the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel in the first book: they actually strengthen the plot rather than weaken it.
There is one major departure from Tolkien which bothers me about this movie, however, and it is the same thing that bothered me about Fellowship of the Ring. Tolkien was painting a very believable fantasy world in which there was nevertheless true nobility in the midst of easily swayed and tempted creatures. Aragorn represents a return to a more noble state of humanity -- Elrond even calls him the image of the earliest kings in glory undiminished from the beginning. Yet Aragorn in the Fellowship movie comes across as a lost soul who has turned away from his destiny, rather than the true king awaiting his time. He does seem to be developing his character in the Two Towers, however, and is beginning to show something of a kingly nature.
In the same fashion, Faramir supposedly hearkens back to the earlier days of Gondor, in which there was true greatness among the people of Gondor. Yet in the movie, Faramir is just as weak, just as fallen, as Boromir. His actions towards Frodo, Sam, and the Ring are even more debased than Boromir's, and more alarming. He does realize his error, but it seems unnecessary.
Boromir's and Faramir's father Denethor (not in this movie, but in the next) we can expect to be like this, so Faramir represents the counterpoint. Denethor and Faramir are good and great men, father and son. One chooses pride as a way of life, and lords it over a kingdom as Steward in a losing war. The other chooses humility as a way of life, and finds in service a greatness beyond that of his father.
Part of what makes LOTR one of the greater literary works of the past century is its ability to communicate that we all do face choices between Valinor and Mordor (essentially heaven and hell), we do not have to be born the heir of kings to live nobly, and real examples do exist, for we all have the seeds of greatness within ourselves. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin are all very ordinary characters, but they all achieve a kind of greatness through their struggles. I think Tolkien would say, "So may we all."