The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Second part of the trilogy. More running around Middle-earth uttering fairly ludicrous statements and looking serious. 

You simply need to take it at face value that this creature/thing can out-magic that creature thing, or that this mystic power can thwart that one. 

There’s little here that wasn’t done better in the first instalment, which had a more unified narrative. Also, the segments featuring the walking, talking living trees dragged and detracted from the dynamism of the big battle scenes. 

The best thing about the series is Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn Elessar. He’s fun to watch, unlike the loutish Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) and the silly baddie with hair like Cher (Christopher Lee). 

It suffers from “mid-trilogy” problems in that it has to build on or develop themes from the previous film without the luxury of being about to resolve any of them.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

First part of Peter Jackson’s version of J. R. R. Tolkien’s fantasy epic. 

A hobbit called Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) journeys through Middle-earth to destroy a ring containing immense evil power. Along the way there are battles and mystical happenings that help and hinder his progress. 

I was somewhat dreading watching this – anything with wizards, elves, magic and beards is a big turn-off – but it was better than I thought. The storytelling is coherent and the acting is above par. 

Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Christopher Lee, Sean Bean and Andy Serkis, among others, all do their bit. It’s ludicrous, but they take it seriously enough to make it just about hang together. 

My objection remains the arbitrary-seeming, make-it-up-as-you-go-along “rules” (i.e., this sword will glow blue when orcs or goblins are approaching) that typify fantasy. This thing has this power. That thing can defeat this thing. This other thing can destroy that other thing.

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Ninth Bond film and the second with Roger Moore, who, throughout the film, wears suits that are too big for him. Bond pursues the “Solex Agitator” device (tied into an interesting plot about the 1973 oil crisis) and arch-villain Scaramanga (Christopher Lee). It’s as racist and sexist as you’d expect from the vintage. That aside, what are the pros and cons of the film?

Pluses:
• M and Q’s base hidden in a wrecked ship in Hong Kong has brilliantly skewed angles with their own dream logic – superb set design.
• Christopher Lee is charming and convincing compared to most Bond villains. He could be the best of all. He certainly out-acts Roger Moore.
• The horror-funhouse in which Scaramanga traps his victims is imaginative and thrilling.
• This dialogue...
Bond: “But where is it collected from? You need the sun.”
Scaramanga: “Watch that mushroom-shaped rock. lngenious, isn't it?”

Minuses: 
• Britt Ekland is terribly weak as “Goodnight”, but the character is so underwritten that she isn’t given much to work with.
• The name “Goodnight” seems to exist only to enable a feeble pun at the very end of the film that isn’t worth the wait.
• Bond hits a woman again (see also From Russia with Love).
• Awful theme tune by Lulu: a breathless dash of a song.
• In one scene, Nick Nack throws countless wine bottles at Bond but no wine spills anywhere. Then Britt Ekland manages to clean up hundreds of shards of glass within minutes.
• The comedy character Sheriff J.W. Pepper returns from Live and Let Die and hasn’t got any funnier.
• A brilliant stunt in which a car corkscrews across a river is ruined by the pointless addition of a “whoopsie” sound effect. What were they playing at?!