Only way to make it better is to make it longer

Rating: Null/10 (23 December 2002)

I am not a Tolkien-freak, though I read LOTR about once a year (about 20 times now, including once reading it out loud for my kids). I do like the book, and the world it is anchored in. It is simply great. And so are the movies, both of them. If I would have to pick I would take The Two Towers, simply because of the massive scenes at Helm's Deep. Truly amazing, if asked beforehand I would branded the task impossible, and even after hearing reliable eye-witness accounts I went into the theater quite sceptical. Not anymore, this film (and in all fairness probably the whole trilogy) really is a masterpiece, a milestone in the ever more shallow movie industry and something for future filmmakers to strive for. I was again transported to Middle-Earth, and though only for three measly hours I will still forever be grateful to anyone involved with this epic trilogy (I am quite convinced the third installment will be on par with the two other). Brilliant: 10/10.
I also think all nitpicking critics are plain wrong. And right, seen from another angle. JRR Tolkien wanted to create something that would serve as a sort of myth, an epic, a cultural backbone, something the anglosaxon culture really doesn't have (the Arthurian legends are mostly "imported"). And what is a myth/epic other than a long storyline broken into shorter stories. Even LOTR is but a part (or actually six parts, considering) of the Middle Earth myth. The way stories are told are influenced by the teller, in this case Peter Jackson and his team (and the constraints placed upon him). And my honest opinion is that he succeeds marvelously in his telling. He simply brings Middle Earth alive in a way I could never even have hoped for.
Nagging about why he tells the story his way (and not some other way, of which there are myriads of alternatives) is irrelevant to the story, both for the teller and the audience. He is, and should be, telling A STORY, not delivering a carbon copy of a book. Just consider how many ways of (re-)telling the Iliad (and the parts thereof) that exists in print and film. What PJ as a director should do is stay true to the story, not the way it is presented in print. And I think he does precisely that, and magnificently! Discussing why some part of the book is important to the printed version is both interesting and fun, but should not be used to critique the film.
I honestly think PJ and his team handles the legacy of Tolkien with much gentler hands and more respect than all those imbecil idiots who since the publishing of LOTR have tried to convert the story into an allegory for this or that or something even worse. Am excellent example of this is the way CGI and SFX are used throughout the film (both of them), ONLY to serve the story, NEVER for it's own purpose. This, for me, shows beyond any doubt that what PJ and his team have tried to do is tell (their version of) the end of the Third Age of Middle Earth. And for that they should be both richly commended and rewarded.
So, the short version of all this is, pay your dues and go see the The Two Towers. But only after watching The Fellowship of The Ring first. And, of course, if you haven't already, read the (unabridged) book.