A masterpiece, but . . .

Rating: Null/10 (22 December 2002)

Another brilliant effort by Jackson. Gollum was worth the price of admission alone. The special effects were entrancing and mind-blowing, the battle scenes were probably the best ever filmed, the scenery was spectacular . . . but I liked the first one better for a number of reasons.
a) In the Twin towers, action comes at the expense of character development. This is my biggest complaint with the movie. In the first installment the characters were real, heroic, in the second they often seem too much like Hollywood superheroes and they become less interesting as a consequence. Gandalf appearing like the Lone Ranger on the horizon, rearing back on his horse and then charging into battle wielding his staff like a sword. C'mon, we don't need those cliches. When Aragorn looses an arrow, 10 orcs die. When 1,000 orcs shoot at him, they all miss. Ironically, the one character who really comes alive is the computer created Gollum who manages to be evil, innocent, pitiful and hateful all at once. If only Jackson would have spent equal time developing the other main characters this movie would have been a masterpiece, or rather more of a masterpiece. Special effects are fun, but I liked it better when the heroes appeared more mortal and their development as friends and warriors helped drive the movie's pace.
b) Faramir should sue for character assassination. In the book he was as wise and intuitive as his brother Boromir was boorish and insensitive. In the movie he comes across as stubborn and dense. Tolkien's Faramir was able to guess Frodo's quest without being told, as he was able to surmise Boromir's treachery. I wish Jackson wouldn't have fooled with his character.
c) The ents are mostly boring until the climactic scene at Isengard which is a lot of fun. (The ents are a weak part of Tokien's trilogy too.)
d) The steeds ridden by the ringwraiths weren't very impressive.