(Admins, didn't see the LOTR sub-section when I posted this thread, please move to LOTR sub-section at your earliest convenience).

1st hour - above average, mainly played for chuckles.
2nd hour - okay, either too slow or too long depends on your POV.
3rd hour - off the hook and totally insane!

The intercutting among the groups in the 3rd act just spoils a lot of the momentum of the film, and the editing could have been better.

The special effects and the production values are first rate, and must be considered the top contender in the Oscar race for, again, most of the technical areas. Gollem was integrated very seamlessly through the film for the most part. The Ents were realized, but I found their personality to truly slow the pace of the film to a standstill (I guess that's point, but it doesn't quite contribute to the momentum of the film as a cinematic experience). Pippen and Merry's hanging with the Ents was the weakest part of the film for me.

The film comes up short in the characterization and scope because it slips into exposition at awkward moments (the sin of "show, don't tell").

Gimli steals the movie from...I'm not quite sure from who, but I'll get back to you on that. Nonetheless, he gets most of the laughs, with some additional ones from Gollem and Sam. Legolas does a couple of manuevers that will elicit applause from the crowd, you'll know it when you see it.

The acting was above average. I think Elijah Woods does a good job showing the effects of the ring's emerging and powerful hold on him. I didn't find a lot of heightened dramatic moments between characters, I thought the crisis points were a bit too laid back in the face of insurmountable odds.

The battle scenes need to be seen on a big screen to be appreciated and enjoyed. The scope of the battles in the 3rd hour delivers a good finish to this 2nd installment of the trilogy.

The audience cheered in several spots in the film, and applauded at the end. A young guy sitting next to me snored at 4 different points in the film, mainly in the 2nd hour, I looked over, and his head was tilted back and he was totally snookered and in REM sleep. Strange, but true.

I give it a solid 3 stars, or a grade of B.

Now if only Peter Jackson would have stuck to the story line given in the book.

Many haven't read the books and won't care about the changes.....

Books and movies are different ... live with it (though most of the stuff I didn't really like was the "new" stuff)

Of course we'll "live with it," but that's not the point. The changes Jackson made did not serve to tell the existing story better. He threw out major chunks of story (and totally changed some significant characters) just "because he could."

Does that make the movie unwatchable? Of course not. But it is blatantly obvious which story elements were written by Tolkein versus which were written by Jackson. And it is also blatantly obvious that Jackson is nowhere near as good as Tolkien at inventing a richly textured universe. He may be a master at visualizing one that has already been created, but that is a completely different subject.

I found the movie to be Long but always entertaining, just not totally engrossing.

The main problem being - it jumped around too much. I mean - it covered everything with grace, but didn't focus enough on anything central. That being said, it's a hellov a lot better than the last "middle" movie, the horrendously boring Star Wars Episode II. Not once did I get bored or anxious during the movie. My only complaint being that there are a few CG shots that look cheap - especially in comparison to the amazing creation that is Gollum (He didn't neccessarily look real, but his movement and interaction with the human world was absolutely unreal.)

In terms of plot and story - I enjoyed it sufficiently - apparently most of the main plot points from the books are in the movie, and I think Jackson crammed about as much as he could into 3 hours without it being an incredibly jumpy flick.

Overall, a very entertaining flick, hampered only by unreasonable high expectations set upon by the first, and an ending that left me wanting more while not pissing me off like the first one did.

On a side note: did the films setup remind anyone else of the korean film Musa? Dunno why, but it did for me - and nobody locally agrees, so figured I'd ask here.

Author fanboys

Excuse me RoboDad but I totally disagree with you. Since I first saw this magnificient piece of film history that is the second Part of the "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" last monday, I've been thinking about those changes made by Jackson and there is not a single one I can think of that has no purpose either to make the script more storywise.

Sure Jackson could have stuck closer to the original material like for instance Columbus did on the Harry Potter movies. But I usually think that too close translations from books don't work so well. You have to be able to infuse a sense of constant tension in a film otherwise, you'll lose the viewers.

So I don't think he did the changes because he could. I think he made them because he should.

First, let me say that, after a second viewing, I realize I may have been somewhat harsh in my criticism (hey, it was three o'clock in the morning before I was done watching it the first time ).

However, with that said, I still believe that it was unnecessary to completely rewrite Faramir's character, and the whole Osgiliath scene felt very contrived and, as someone said in another thread, "very un-Tolkien-like". I believe it would have been possible to maintain viewer interest and keep Faramir as the honorable man he was in the book. After all, there is a good reason (IMO) for keeping him as originally written. He provided a juxtaposition to the folly of his brother, showing that not all mortal men crave power, but that some really do want nothing more than to do the right thing, regardless of what the outcome might be for them, personally.

Maybe after my third or fourth viewings I'll warm up a bit more to those changes. Only time will tell.

I still need to see it again (and believe me I will ) but.....

I actually thought Farmair was an honorable and good man. If you take into account the circumstances he was facing in the film, he eventually did the right thing.

It took a while for him to realize what the hobbits were carring, and what they planned to do with it. And when he did learn about the ring his first reaction was to use it to help his people. He wasn't taking it for himself but sending it to his father. And all of this was happening while they were fighting a war. A war they were losing.

Remember, we have all had the benefit of watching Fellowship....he hasn't. Farmiar went through much of the same debate about the ring that the entire council did, and unlike Boromir he had the power and opportunity to take the ring. The was nothing Frodo or Sam could have done if he wanted to take it, but he let them go. Even though it could have repercussions for him, Famair let them go.

That's exactly what Boromir did when he found out about the ring. He never wanted it for himself, but for his people. So, essentially, they were the same person, in the movie. However, in the book, Faramir says from the beginning that he wouldn't touch the ring.

Personally the biggest change that is sticking in my mind is the battle of Helms Deep, and the way it ended. I really liked how they ended it in the book, but they saw fit to change it a lot in the movie.

I don't really want to say too much yet, because I want to see it at least once more before I make too many decisions about it.

-CM-

Except for the fact that Boromir tried to take the ring and failed, and Farmair could have taken the ring but chose not to on his own.

I can see the departures from the book serving some reasons. The "death" of Aragorn allows the audience to really see his importance to both Gimli and Legolas, as well as Rohan (Eowyn and Theoden). Admittedly, the "over the cliff" thing has been done, I can see it as a moment of emotion in a movie that a lot of people describe as lacking emotion. It is also a vehicle for the Arwen flashbacks to say "hey, we're still in this movie."

As for the scenes with Faramir, I think they demonstrate the "weakness of man" theme that follows the men of Gondor. Though the novel shows him as pretty much a straight arrow, this interpretation forces him to see the evil of the ring before he decides not to bring it back to his city. The scene also delays Frodo's group from reaching Minas Morgul in this movie and ending the story near where it ended in the book. Also, you never know how these "new" events could turn up again in the last movie (and perhaps make them more significant).

Though I didn't like some of the new stuff, I need to see the movie again and stop thinking about the novel as I do it.

First off, I don't think anyone in the audience believed Aragorn dies by going over the cliff. However, Gimli and Legolas sure did, which intertwined them a bit more in the story. So to that change.

As much as people criticise the humor in the story, I think it also served as purpose in that it made Gimli a bit more human (as well as Legolas, who has the best line with, "You look terrible!"). Remember, the first movie has chuckle moments too ("Nobody tosses a dwarf!" it's just that they're not as outright hilarious as they are in this film. I mean it's not like Legolas shot an orc that falls on and kills another one and says "I've ORC-estrated your death!" and then Gimli hits someone in the head with an axe and says "I'm sorry to give you a splitting headache!!" -- I mean those are downright awful.

The other change IIRC is having the people of Rohan inside the caves at Helm's Deep, instead of off away in some mountains. This escalates the situation by basically saying to the viewer, "If they fail, everyone dies!" instead of "If they fail, at least the wives and children are safe."

Seeing the movie a 2nd time really made it slow in some parts. Being exhausted from working the day after a midnight show, and seeing an 10:15 show the day after I took a catnap in the middle of the movie, which points out to me I hated the scenes with Faramir.

The three movies combined will go over 9 hours. If he did go "by the book" the movies would have exceeded 18 hours.

Sometimes you have to find the meat of the story and trim all the excess fat, even if it adds to the flavor.

Yeah, but in retrospect, New Line probably wishes they had put up $600 million for 6 movies, creating the potential for twice the gross.

Don't forget that the EE edition of TTT will be 4 hours. So I'm sure a lot of the missing pieces will be there.

Bottom line, it's about the studio having the most possible viewings in a day. A 4 hour movie would cut down on each days revenue, and maybe scare away some casual moviegoers that otherwise would have went to the theater to see the movie.

I too saw Faramir as a good and honorable man. The fact that he was able to resist the ring in the end and let Frodo go made him moreso in my eyes.

It shows that there is hope in the world of men, that men can put aside their desire for power (described in the begging of FOTR) for the greater good.

I posted a review in the other thread, so I'll only say that I liked it at least as much as FOTR and can't wait for the Extended DVD version and ROTK.