Let's begin with a couple of justified assumptions: First, that you're going to go see "The Two Towers." Second, that nothing I write here is likely to make you change your mind about doing so.

I'm glad. If you love Tolkien and/or if you've already invested three hours of your time in "The Fellowship of the Ring," you should make an effort to catch the second film on the big screen. It's worth it.

That said, I was disappointed on several counts, nearly all of them having to do with story.

To get off on the right foot:

"The Two Towers" matches the first installment of Peter Jackson's film adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" in most areas: incredible cinematography, brilliant casting, compelling drama. And it surpasses its predecessor in terms of sheer adrenaline. If you go in for action and military confrontation, nobody's ever come close in a fantasy setting to what Jackson accomplishes in "The Two Towers."

But ...

He diddles with the story. Not in forgiveable ways as with "The Fellowship of the Ring," but gratuitously and in ways that don't make for a better story or a better film.

In "The Fellowship of the Ring," Jackson made minor plot changes and left out some material from the book (notably the Hobbits' encounter with Tom Bombadil). It was clear that he did this in order to keep the film to a reasonable length (also three hours) and that the choices he made in cutting were made well. Everything essential to the story remained; nothing so extraneous as to be distracting was added.

The same is not true of "The Two Towers." Jackson's changes add length to the film -- or, at the very least, use up time that could have been better spent telling the story in the way that Tolkien did. They substantially change the direction and emphasis of the story and add in important events that are simply not alluded to in the novels.

In other words, Jackson's changes don't improve the story, they don't make the story more coherent and they don't make it a better film.

Spoiler Alert: If you don't want to see material that clues you in to the events in the film, then stop here, or do a "find" on "End of Spoiler Alert" to skip to the material after the spoilers.

In Tolkien's vision, the battle of Helm's Deep, while important, is not the central part of the plot. The movie is centered around it -- and alters it considerably, including bringing Elves in to help Theoden defend the redoubt and leaving out the role of the forest of Fangorn in the undoing of the forces sent to assault Helm's Deep.

In Tolkien's vision, Faramir resists the temptation of the Ring and, having helped Frodo and Sam, releases them to continue their quest. In the movie, he inexplicably kidnaps them away to the embattled city of Osgiliath, intending to turn them (and the ring) over to his father Denethor, the steward of Gondor. Frodo and Sam confront the Nazgul leading the attack on Osgiliath.

Both of these changes -- as well as a battle between the Riders of Rohan and an enemy scouting party resulting in the apparent death of Aragorn, an emphasis on incipient romance between Eowyn and Aragorn that just isn't part of the books (although her attraction to him is), and a plodding series of flashbacks to non-existent, or at least untold by Tolkien, elements in Aragorn and Arwen's relationship -- lengthen the film to no apparent purpose.

Jackson also inexplicably changes the sequence of events leading up to the Ents' attack on Orthanc. In the books, Tolkien describes a long meeting at which the Ents decide to take action, and their bloodlust when they see with their own eyes what Saruman has been doing to their beloved forest. In the movie, Jackson has the Ents decide against going to war against Saruman, and Merry and Pippin tricking them into it. This may seem like a minor change ... but what's the point? It would have taken no longer to do it the way Tolkien did, and the way Jackson chose was no more effective.

Finally, a bit of a pet peeve that involves my suspension of disbelief: In the book, the Ents redirect the river Isen to flood Saruman's underground works at Orthanc and prevent his possible escape via underground tunnels, after having substantially won the battle. In the movie, they break a dam overlooking Orthanc as a tactic in the battle itself. I'm not exactly sure why Jackson expects people to believe that the builders of Orthanc would conveniently locate it at the bottom of a cliff beneath a primitive dam. Part of the hour of "fat" introduced into the movie as described above could have been cut in order to get the assault on Orthanc right.

End of Spoiler Alert.

Should you see this movie? Of course you should. It's a fine film. Unfortunately, it has to be evaluated alongside "The Fellowship of the Ring" and next year's "The Return of the King" -- and on the former count, it is sorely lacking in terms of story coherence and faith to the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. More importantly, Jackson's departures from Tolkien's vision don't make it a better movie -- they make it a worse one.

A final caveat: I loved "The Fellowship of the Ring," but not as much as I thought I would, after seeing it in the theater. When it became available on DVD, however, it grew on me. I like it better now, having seen it a few more times, than I did the night I saw it for the first time. It is possible that "The Two Towers" will, similarly, age well in my mind as a viewer.

Recommended:
Yes