Epic but deeply flawed, but that's mostly down to the books

Rating: 5/10 (24 December 2002)

Peter Jackson has clearly rushed through the middle instalment in the Lord of the Rings cycle, with heavy over-use of CGI effects that may satisfy some but leave this observer mostly cold. In some ways, spending less time on The Two Towers is justified - after all, it is the weakest link in the original books (the first half of The Two Towers book is a very weak and ponderous piece of fantasy writing). However, the immense revenue and over-hype surrounding Fellowship (the film), along with the indulgence shown to Jackson in being permitted to release the 'director's cut' DVD so soon after the original film release, has taken the edge off his directorial skills. Three hours is way too long, for a start, particularly in a film which has little in the way of deep dramatic substance. This is really the Aragorn-character's film - he is centre stage and what little solid acting has been allowed by the director is usually on view through Aragorn. Jackson is not helped by Tolkien's wandering, skeletal plot - he has done well to bring Gollum to the fore and beef up the dialogue for this character (the vocalisation for Gollum is excellent - more evil and snivelling I haven't heard in a long time!). It is regrettable, though, that Gollum is wholly CGI - it's quite a feat of computer engineering but it is a very long way from being convincing. How many times do the lips truly move in sync with the dialogue, for example? (Not many!!) I have read reviews that rave about the Helm's Deep battle. Well on this point, the film couldn't have won me over just because I find extended close-up battle scenes increasingly depressing - does every 'epic' film these days really have to do all this over and over again? But that's my personal subjectivity; as battle scenes go it is rather splendid, but the epic scale is somewhat marred by the anonymity of most of the combatants, and some flawed CGI (though nowhere near as weak as the parasurfing incident in Die Another Day ...). Gladiator made much more impact on me. Another area in which the original text is weak, thus hampering the film, is the lack of a visible, Darth Vader-like enemy. Here in the film, Saruman is relegated almost to a couple of cameo scenes - what a waste of Christopher Lee! - and of course we never get to see the dreaded Sauron (true to the book but Jackson has taken welcome liberties with the text this time around, so why not more big bad guy?). The noble exception is Brad Dourif's excellent Wormtongue - he is truly creepy and was, for me, the high point of the film. Relegating Gimli to a comedy walk-on role, a la C3PO in Star Wars Ep 2, is a good thing after the messy performance in Fellowship. Rhys Davies get's a meatier role by far in the voiceover for Treebeard - I thought the Ents were well realised but almost looking like they were in the wrong film (i.e. would have looked great in a cartoon or a Final Fantasy-type CGI-only effort). I realise this will be a huge film in terms of popularity and takings, and good luck to Peter Jackson and the whole team - who, all things considered, are carrying off a marvel in terms of cutting-edge filming techniques. But as a film, it just didn't absorb me; I found the storyline tenuous and much less coherent than in Fellowship; I thought the CGI dominated the film, usually not to its benefit; and I left feeling impressed but a long way from being thrilled. It's a money machine now, and the books really don't stand up to critical scrutiny sufficiently to carry off the 'epic' tag for the film that many are lavishing on it. A film to reflect on in a few years' time - after the hype - to see just how it stands up in the hall of fame.