>So, just wondering what your opinion is on the trilogy taken as a whole? If
>seen as the one picture it sorta is, do the first and third parts make up
>for the middle, or does Two Towers drag the whole package down?

There's a story about an old woman who's walking her five year old grandson
along the beach one day, and a huge wave comes up out of nowhere and just
sweeps the kid out to sea, disappearing.

The grandmother is frantic, pleads with god to give her back her grandson, just
bring him back and she'll never ask for anything again.

Suddenly there's another huge wave, and bang, the kid is deposited at her feet,
safe and sound.

She embraces the boy, hugs and kisses him, then looks up at the sky and says,
"He had a hat."

To overly criticize the second part is pretty much along the lines of, "He had
a hat."

That the LoTR adaptation has been done this well, or even half this well, is a
boon to everyone who's ever been a fan of the books. Is the middle perfect?
No, there are some bits I'll always kind of fast forward through...but where
was it written that it had to be perfect? Perfect, to be honet, is the enemy
of good.

Part two is quite good. Parts one and three are wildly sensational. And, to
be honest again, if you're watching 10 hours of a story, you or the story are
inevitably going to fade a bit toward the middle.

No, on balance, I think that the LoTR films will stand the test of time as a
true classic, whose importance will only grow as years pass. It really
represents, more than the Star Wars films -- which have sadly fallen by the
wayside creatively -- the Everest of films in this genre, and it's certainly to
be considered one of the major edifices outside the genre as well.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)