Peter Jackson, have mercy. . .(SPOILERS)

Rating: 10/10 (21 December 2002)

I knew that I had been sitting in the theater, watching "The Two Towers", for a very long time --much longer than the usual time a modern person's body clock allows for watching a single movie. So when a certain blackout occurred on the screen --despite the fact that I knew that there was more story still to go in the book of "The Two Towers", that Frodo and Sam had still to meet "Her", that Gandalf had still to confront Saruman and both Pippin and Aragorn to look in the Palantir of Orthanc-- despite all the story left to be told, I eyed this particular blackout on the screen with trepidation, and drew back in my chair, holding my breath. And then, came the words I knew must come and yet hoped might be delayed just a little longer. They were the first words of the ending credits, telling me that the film I had just seen, which was now over, had been directed by Peter Jackson. I let out my breath. Yes, I thought. It is over.
And then I thought: I AM GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR BEFORE I SEE THE REST OF THIS FILM.
Peter Jackson, couldn't you make a nice Summer 2003 release of The Return of the King? Huh? Please?
I won't even bother to rave and gush about how great this film was. Everyone else is already doing it for me, and it kind of goes without saying. However, I wouldn't be the true LOTR geek that I am if I didn't quibble just a little bit about a few minor things. In no order of importance: (1) the Jackson-fabricated bit where Aragorn falls over the cliff and is telepathically "resurrected" by Arwen was completely unnecessary. Also, between that bit and what has already happened to Gandalf, there is a danger of oversaturating and therefore desensitizing the audience. How many more characters can we expect to fall a great distance and be given up for dead, only to make a spectacular, emotional comeback? Speaking of which, (2) the return of Gandalf, and particularly the revelation of Gandalf to the others in the Fellowship, is treated with very broad swift strokes in this film. (3) By eliminating the character of Erkenbrand, and making Eomer disappear from the film just after meeting Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, so that Gandalf brings him and his men (instead of Erkenbrand, as in the book) back to Helm's Deep, the film is missing Eomer as a character --and misses the development of the bond of loyalty and devotion that, in the book, form between Eomer and Aragorn (not to mention the friendly rivalry between Eomer and Gimli). (4) Eowyn is far too sunny and "girlish". All that "poison" that Wormtongue spits at her in the film is what her character should actually be thinking. She's not supposed to smile like she does until much, much later. (5) While I understand the cinematic and, in some ways, story-enhancing value of having Faramir (who does not do this in the book) drag Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, intending to bring the Ring as a weapon to Gondor, I wish Peter Jackson had been able to accomplish his ends in some way that did not cast Faramir in such a bad light. In the book, Faramir "shows his quality" by rejecting the Ring straightaway, in the cave by the waterfall. Why must he be so much weaker in the film? And finally, (6) Huorns!! Where are the Huorns? Don't tell me, Peter Jackson, that you can make CGI mallorns and armies and volcanoes and giant statues and underground caverns and flying lizards and Gollum and Ents and whatall else, and you can't give me one walking Orc-swallowing demon forest??
But seriously, a summer release for Return of the King. Think about it.