> Two people beat me to this. I saw an early matinee so this wouldn't happen. You all stink.
>
> Anyway, I loved the movie. Loved it. However, as much as I am resisting comparisons with Fellowship (because all three should really be judged as a unified whole), I think Fellowship had a little spark of something that Two Towers is missing. I can't figure out what. It ups the ante on visuals, and Gollum is an utter delight. Maybe it's just that Jackson's vision of LotR is not new to me this time out, but I think the problems I have are more story-related (and not to do with the source material either). But my problems are nitpicks nonetheless, so much so that I doubt I'll mention most of them in my formal review of the film on At-A-Glance.
>

Sam, you are missing the obvious! What does the second have that the first doesn't? MORE HORSEYS! More emphasis on horseys. That's what it is that makes it so much better. ;-)

-Le"who thinks the best scene has to be when Aragorn gets a little nibble from his horsey"en