BETTER THAN THE BOOK!!!

Rating: 10/10 (18 December 2002)

It's so depressing that after over a century of film, we are still hearing the same pathetic whinge that movies are not as good as the books on which they are based.
I expect this hackneyed cliché to be spouted from some lazy tabloid hack, but it beggars belief that people choose to post such rampant idiocy ON A MOVIE WEBSITE. You are supposed to be movie fans, for God's sake - get a grip!
A BOOK is a COMPLETELY different medium than a FILM.
Would you say that the painting of The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci is not as good as the events described in the Bible? Would you dream of lambasting the ballet performance of Romeo and Juliet because all your favourite lines from the play where missing?
To review a film on the basis that the director's imagination didn't quite live up to YOUR personally-invoked imagination is not only childish, but ignorant, bigoted and highly offensive to the thousands of people who work their arses off in order to keep us genuinely entertained for a couple of hours each week.
To bring an epic of this scale to the silver screen takes years of determination, focus and sheer hard graft. To make a sequel that is far and away the best film of the year takes absolute genius.
Hats off to Peter Jackson. John Ronald Reuel would have been proud.
So then, why I am saying the film of The Two Towers is better than the book?
Ah, that's because it only takes three hours to watch the film. It took me ages to read the book!
Sounds silly doesn't it? It should. Now, next time you choose to share your informed opinion with the millions of other users of imdb, please bear that in mind.