Rotten Tomatoes did, which means that fewer people outright didn't like it. But metacritic didn't, which means that those that did like it gave it, on average, lower scores. Which makes sense to me - Fellowship is, imho, a better movie but less viscerally satisfying (fewer exciting action sequences), so I can see some people getting bored by Fellowhip but enjoying Two Towers enough to give it "fresh", if not a super-high score.
The real story on that one is that they both got really good reviews across the board, which is why the difference is so small.
The Two Towers always felt like the draggy middle part to me, although there are some excellent moments in it.
That was my favorite of the three.
I enjoyed all of the trilogy on first viewing, but whenever I rewatch, Fellowship still stands as a great movie even though it's clear that it's a Part I and not freestanding. The Two Towers feels like a 4-hour movie that somehow manages to fit 87 hours into the middle half. And RotK just gags me with all the great white king and savior and destiny and Jesus Sue.
I can forgive RoTK an awful lot for the beacons of Minas Tirith, and the charge of the Rohirrim.
Liese is me. Although I'm still a little cranky about how they changed her speech in the movie.
Although I'm still a little cranky about how they changed her speech in the movie.
I'm still cranky about how they changed her character. I wanted the death-loving ice maiden, not someone unhappy and pining because she wouldn't get the guy. (I overstate, but not by much. I far preferred book!Eowyn's brittle despair.)
Consuela, I completely agree.
Oh man. I just watched The Last Airbender and it was bad. So, so bad. I knew it was going to be really bad, but honestly didn't think it could be as horribly bad as it was. It felt like a bad SyFy movie. Just... ugh.
