Opportunity Missed (Spoilers!)

Rating: Null/10 (6 January 2003)

SPOILERS!
My main objections to this film are based in the fact that I am a hopeless Tolkien purist. You've all met people like me: we started playing Dungeons and Dragons because it was modeled on Tolkien; we did Halloween dressed as Rangers, Elven Warriors, and the like; we found places to get real swords; we made our own chain mail; we can sit and discuss the LOTR books ad infinitum and even quote dialogue; we bought and read The Silmarillion in hardcover as soon as it hit the shelves; and we all secretly loved, while publicly denigrating, the cartoon version of The Hobbit with Orson Bean as the voice of Bilbo. I first read the books in about 1976, at the behest of my 6th-grade English teacher, to whom I still owe an immense debt. I have read the trilogy literally dozens of times. I've read it three times in an Italian translation. I read it out loud to my kids. Well, you get the picture.
Now that you know that about me, the following will be understandable. I thought it was an OK movie. Technically, it was magnificent; the filming every bit as majestic or epic or whatever adjective you want to use, as FOTR. The actors did nice work (although Elijah Wood is not stellar at portraying the ever-growing weight of the burden of the Ring). I even think Liv Tyler is a passable Arwen. What I didn't like was the fact that, in a couple of instances in this movie, the filmmakers took liberties with parts of the story line gratuitously. I can see doing some things differently for visual effect, since any movie "watches" different than its book reads. However, in this film more so than in The Fellowship of the Ring, the makers made changes that were unnecessary for dramatic effect, but were more geared toward the action-adventure angle. There were some changes that were more effective dramatically, but I objected to a couple of fairly major things.
First, the whole sub-story about Eomer, Eowyn, Theoden, and the Kingdom of Rohan got bollixed up for no reason. Eomer was not banished in the book, and didn't need to be banished in the movie, to achieve the drama in the rejuvenation of Theoden. In fact, this little ad-lib actually made it more difficult to get him and his band of Riders (what? Did they all go into banishment with him?) back into the fight in Helm's Deep. And he got Gandalf's best line, the one where he asks Wormtongue, "How long?" How long since he sold out and was to receive from a victorious Saruman his share of the spoils, and the woman he has long coveted? Eomer gets that line, and he gets it too early. He's long-gone, instead of being released from his cell in time to join Aragorn and company after Theoden perks up.
In the books, Gandalf (now returned from the dead, dressed in radiant white, remember) talks to Theoden and helps him break the spell of lethargy and the despair that Wormtongue has poisoned his mind with. There's very little implication that Wormy has worked any actual magic on Theoden in the book. Rather, he has helped Theoden always see the negative, and he falls into depression and despair. Gandalf, bringer of hope and new life, gives him back his pride and his desire to do good, defend his people, go out in glory if go out he must. Instead, in the book, we get a Theoden who is actually possessed by Saruman, and must be literally exorcised; he then becomes visibly younger as Saruman is "cast out." Excuse me, but if Saruman could possess Theoden, what need was there for Wormtongue? And why hadn't Theoden/Saruman just concluded an alliance with Isengard? The book version is a lot more credible, and could have been done with equal or greater drama. Real drama, not the cheap-thrill drama of the exorcism scene. The whole thing was as unfair to Gandalf and to Saruman as the "Saruman Meets Gandalf in WWF ACTION!!!!" fight scene in the FOTR film.
To add insult to injury, this new, younger Theoden then becomes a constant bitcher and whiner in Helm's Deep. Just shut up and fight, Your Majesty. The less-glorious, less "Numenorean" dignity and majesty of the King of the Rohirrim is lost; a dignity and majesty that is homier and more easily understood by the simple salt-of-the-earth Hobbits than the more refined, esoteric, rarified Numenorean lords. He could have been the kind and noble King to whom Merry freely gives his sword in the books, but no, it's more "dramatic" to make him, first, a possessed, hag-ridden dotard, and then a futile whiner.
Minor points on this story line: Eowyn is left in Edoras; she doesn't go to Helm's Deep. No Elvish army ever shows up at Helm's Deep - what the heck was that all about, anyway? It's Erkenbrand with the remnants of the army of the Westfold who shows up at the last minute, not Eomer and his Riders-in-Exile. The Isengard army is supposed to be destroyed by the Huorns, the nasty semi-Ents - where were they? Wouldn't have been dramatic to have shown the awe on the faces of the defenders at the sight of the new forest, the Orc army fleeing into the trees, and its disappearance the next morning? And you could have done it all in the time it took to have that darn Elvish army march in. Instead, Eomer, who shouldn't have been banished, shows up with an army that shouldn't have followed him into banishment, and they save the day, somewhat less than credibly given the numbers stated - 400 against 10,000.
I have to say that Brad Dourif, the guy who did Wormtongue was phenomenal. Very nice job!
Next, Treebeard and the Ents lost some gravity and credibility. In the book they didn't tell Merry and Pippin they wouldn't help, and they didn't suddenly change their minds when they saw the stumps on the borders of Fangorn near Isengard. They were the shepherds of the trees, for heaven's sake. They already knew about the depredations, hated the Orcs, and Treebeard had already been thinking of doing something about Saruman. They lost the deep, intense dignity and wisdom they have by virtue of being the oldest living creatures in Middle Earth. The humorous banter and friendship between Treebeard and the Hobbits could have been, but was not, developed. Again, the time to do so could have been gained by cutting the dumb parts.
Third, Faramir was dealt a grave injustice, and he is no doubt rolling over on his bier in Rath Dinen. He is one of the few truly noble characters in the book, and the filmmakers succumbed to the temptation to give him a dark side. In the book he treats Frodo and Sam as honored guests, and gives them safe passage in all of Gondor except Henneth Annun. In the movie, he basically tries to shanghai them back to Minas Tirith to bring the Ring to Gondor, and is only convinced to let them go when they draw the wrath of the Ringwraith, once he's dragged them all the way back to Osgiliath. In releasing them, he is reminded by a lieutenant that his life is subject to forfeit by so doing, even though he is a Captain of Gondor and the Heir of the Steward. Wanna bet this is the setup to another Dumb Dramatic Scene in the 3d movie? Anyway, Faramir loses all of his nobility and becomes only one shade better than his brother Boromir. The contrast between noble, etherial Faramir and earthy, temporal Boromir, as Faramir laments his brother's death, wouldn't have been all that hard to do in the movie, but again, the makers chose action/adventure over real drama.
Gollum was very well-done, computer-animated with Andy Serkis. I've been trying unsuccessfully for years to visualize Gollum in my mind, and this is a rare case when the movie version just might fit the bill. Aside from a slight resemblance to Yoda ("When carry the Ring as long as did I you have, evil will you be also!"), Gollum is done really well. The interplay between Smeagol and Gollum is done especially well, with the contrast heightened by some cool camera angle work.
Small complaint about FOTR, since she makes a cameo appearance in a sort of flashback in TTT: Cate Blanchett is absolutely horrible as Galadriel, and I can't decide if that's Blanchett's fault or lousy script and direction. I'd have liked to see what that actress, who only has one character, would have done had her script required her to play the "real" Galadriel. She reminded me of Morgan Le Fay in "Excalibur" (the Helen Mirren role). Galadriel was warm, stern, noble, loving and lovabale in the books; the Blanchett version is harsh, hissy, mysterious, cruel and cold. She reminds me of one of those overdone Goth chicks you meet late at night in espresso bars, except in white robes. There's no "touchability" to her at all and no way for the hobbits and others to relate to her in the movies, whereas they all relate to her quite well in the book. I have heard that, iin the extended DVD version of FOTR, there's some cut scenes that develop Gimli's crush on Galadriel, and I will be interested to see how they do this, since I'm not sure Blanchett is capable of holding up her end of it.
Well, that's about it. Not a bad movie, but not one to please the dramatist or the Tolkien purist. A little too much action/adventure and not enough real drama, and plot weaknesses created out of whole cloth and papered over by special effects and frankly brilliant filming. Still a must-see, still a success, but tragically less than it could have been, and less than this long-time Tolkien fan would have liked. Opportunity lost.