Heroism

[ARCHIVE: I think this was one of my better articles, and definitely uses The Two Towers to better social analytical effect.]

"What makes a man / is it the power in his hand / is it his quest for glory"

Everybody has a hero. And I'm not talking about the sandwich. I'm talking about a person or entity that exemplifies qualities that one deems great. Usually these include brave, moral, and determined. Some heroes are respected for their wit or strength. But even individuals that are ruthless or tyrannical are sometimes considered heroes by certain parties. But above all, heroes are meant to be embodiments of ideals; people who are above the common man.

Or are they?

A trend has been reoccurring for the last several decades, if not centuries. Heroes are still great, but not all the time. Whereas the stories of old highlighted their feats, they now show the other times, the down times, when she indulges in chocolate, or he has to deal with traffic, or the friend that is dying of cancer. Heroes have become flawed.

Take for instance, Spider-Man. Big time super-hero. Does whatever a spider can, saves lives and defeats evil doers every day. Why is he so popular? Is it the suit? "Sure, the suit's cool." Is it the powers? "Yeah, he's got moves, but so do a lot of other heroes." Is it the girl troubles? "Oh yeah, I can totally relate, like one time my ex-girlfri-"

See what I'm getting at? Spider-Man is a great hero, but what keeps people interested in him is Peter Parker, the guy beneath, the one with all the problems. Think about the movie for a second. Was the funnier dialogue when he was mouthing off to the Green Goblin, or was it when he was learning to use his webbing, spouting different catchphrases? What do you remember vividly, the initial fight with Osborne, or the kiss in the rain with Mary Jane? Who's more of a priority to Spider-Man, his enemies, or his Aunt May?

The common thread in all these is the human element. It's these little things, like having a crush on the girl next door, or being late for the bus that we can identify with. We admire the deeds, but we connect with the experiences. This can have a large effect on how one thinks of a hero. Consider Superman and Batman. In an average informal sidewalk poll, Bats is almost always considered cooler. A main reason for this is that Batman's human. He doesn't have superpowers, just a utility belt, several years of intense martial arts training, and an attitude. The counterpoint to this is that Clark Kent is much easier to relate to. A white-collar worker from the Midwest, versus a millionaire playboy who gets more ho's than a Hostess pastry factory.

So what happens when old heroes are interpreted through this newer filter? Most recently, this was brought up by auchie. He, or one of his friends, pointed out that Aragorn's portrayal was changed. Whereas in the book he is seen as the perfect, if long-lost, king of Gondor, the movie focuses more on his relationships with others. His respect for Borimir, temptered with intolerance for his impetuousness; his love for Arwyn, tested by the distance between them; and Eowyn. Here lies the meat of the question. auchie (or his friend) says that the movie made him conflicted over his attraction to Eowyn. And why not? Played by Miranda Otto, Eowyn is pretty much the same presented to us in the book. The niece of Theoden, she is of royal blood, but has been trained in sword handling and combat. She's also pretty cute. When she meets Aragorn, she recognizes his skills, as well has his heroic nature (there's that word again). Dashing cut of a man that he is, she falls in love with him. The question lies in Strider's reciprocation or lack thereof.

Personally, I didn't see him returning Eowyn's feelings. There was a definite sense of respect, between one fighter and another, but anything beyond that stopped at friendly camaraderie. Never did he flirt with her, or give her a loving gaze. Okay, maybe once before the Hounds of Isengard attacked, but it was necessarily borne out of love. Eowyn, on the other hand, was given several (well-performed) scenes that made her intentions clear. Aragorn's arrival at Helm's deep is a prime example of this. But to me, the movie harped heavily on the relationship between Aragorn and Arwyn. For most of Two Towers his thoughts are about her. Any time he looked preoccupied it was because he was thinking of her. When he was swept away by the river, he had a hallucination about Elrond's daughter. Even when he was walking right next to Eowyn, he was talking about her. Arwyn seemed to be the very definite wedge between Eowyn and Aragorn, the one little detail she would stumble over, that was keeping them apart. She knew she could never be with him because he loved the Evenstar. And that was something that, to me, seemed to be unchangeable. If Strider was torn about anything, it was the decision of whether she would remain on Middle-Earth or sail to the West. Torn because he loved her so, but he knew it was better that she leave, like Rick in Casablanca. And it's that love for Arwyn; that complicated, eternal, and possibly never-resolved love; that's what I see as being the human element in Aragorn.

Read More......

LotR: The Two Towers(2002)

[ARCHIVE: I spend too much time talking abut things that, ultimately, I don't even consider in the final score. I think I was still just enamoured with the ability to write about anything, so I didn't always make sure I was writing well.]

I was trying to decide whether to post a review of Two Towers, since it's been less than a week. I'm a big opponent of spoilers; I hate people who reveal details to me and I do my damned best to make sure I don't reveal anything that I feel would give someone advance knowledge that they don't want. But when I went to see it Thursday night, one of the fellows that tagged along in our group (I'd never met him before, he was jsut a friend of a friend that was substituting for someone who couldn't be there) had to be told everything that occurred. This was a college kid who had never read Lord of the Rings, or even seen Fellowship despite it being available for rent for more than five months. His response? "Eh, I'm lazy." He even left in the middle to go to the bathroom. So a big fuck you, you ass-monger. Next time you decide to walk into a movie which obviously demands you have previous knowledge of a sort, sit the fsck down and shut you fscking pie hole. Because if you can't be bothered to educate yourself, don't expect people who are trying to watch the movie to explain what's going on to you.

Where was I? Oh yeah. So, people should go see this movie before reading the review. And if not, consider yourself forewarned.

Peter Jackson's The Two Towers is based on the J.R.R. Tolkien "book" of the same title. I say "book" because Tolkien originally planned for Lord of the Rings to be published as a single one thousand page tome. And as one who has read it as such, I can honestly say that it the only way to truly experience the story. The middle child of the three, it suffers from "Empire Syndrome," wherein the film starts assuming the audience has prior knowledge of the characters and ends without a full sense of closure. Towers highlights the separate adventures that the different factions of the Fellowship live through. Frodo and Samwise meet up with the creature Gollum; Merry and Pippen escape captivity and enlist the aid of Treebeard and the Ents; Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas cross the plains of Rohan, stopping to help defend the peoples from Saruman's attack. Popping around here and there, Gandalf comes back from the dead and changes wardrobes. The film serves primarily to establish a new status quo for the final conflict which will be addressed in The Return of the King.

That being said, I give much credit and applause Peter Jackson for not starting off the film with a recap. Although hinted at with the repeated confrontation between Gandalf and the Balrog, what could have been an unnecessary reestablishment of previous happenings was instead expanded and drawn out into a fantastic mid-air battle. Does Gandalf simply fall? No, he retrieves his sword and catches up to the creature of fire and smoke and continues to pummel him all the way down. And that's the way it should be. Two Towers is not meant to be like a James Bond movie, understandable and enjoyable without previous knowledge of the character(s). Towers is a direct continuation of the story started in Fellowship, and though there were probably studio exec breathing down his neck, trying to make him put a recap in the beginning, Jackson understood that such a thing would only be detrimental. This is one of the times where "Empire Syndrome" works to a movie's advantage.

Storywise, the film is looser with its interpretation of the book. Faramir is characterized much more closely to his brother Boromir, and actually takes Frodo, Sam, and The Ring to Gondor. This is something that didn't happen in the book and really shouldn't have happened, but can be traced back to the one little change of making him easier to corrupt. I didn't agree with it, but I can (somewhat) see what the reasoning could be. If he's of the same stock as Boromir, wouldn't he have the same weaknesses? The correct answer, of course, is no, but since in the end he lets the hobbits go, it's a moot point.

The council of the ents was also changed drastically. Ents by nature are a slow and methodical race. They say things slow, the think about things for a long time, and they are not hasty to act. In some ways, the movie stays truer to their nature. They have ignored all the atrocities and happenings in the world so far, why would the fact that the news is brought to their attention by two halflings, a species they didn't even know about before, change anything? But this is something that's bothered me with the book to begin with. Merry and Pippen show up, tell Treebeard what's going on, and then they attack. There isn't much that the hobbits actually do, rather than just send along a message. For that reason, I accept the fact that Pippen "tricks" Treebeard into seeing the evidence firsthand.

BUT.

Ents are slow and methodical in nature. They do NOT wage war and come at the beck and call of a single ent. Perhaps Jackson was trying to make the atrocities seem that much greater, that it could bring even a level headed and thoughtful race to wrath. But in doing so, it changes the constant and unwavering nature of the treeherders. Had Treebeard spared a few moments to reconvene the council, show them the damage, and make an impassioned plea, then less would have been lost. I can see Jackson's reasoning, but I don't believe it to be the right one.

Another point of contention is Theoden. In the book, it is simply Grima Wormtongue's constant interference that leaves the King of Rohan house-ridden and decrepit. In the movie, Saruman has enchanted him and aged his body with spells. This serves to make Saruman more of a threat, in the same way he was handed responsibility for the snowstorm in Fellowship. While the effect of rejuvenating the king was nicely done (first the eyes, then the skin color, followed by the wrinkles), it makes the Theoden's ailments magical in nature and not the effects of neglect.

Other minor points were introduced/or and changed. Haldir and a reinforcement of Elves meet the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep and actually ends up dying there; Aragorn is lost in a battle with the wolves of Isengard, which results in a long sequence soley meant to infuse the movie with a larger presence of Arwyn; some... other... third thing.

But with all these changes, the movie was still on the whole very enjoyable. The soundtrack was spectacular; big and sweeping the way it was meant to be. The sweeping landscapes were breathtakingly beautiful. The acting performances were on spot and convincing (especially Gollum, more on that later).

A movie like this, with armies of thousands, mind-blowing architecture and fantastical creatures, is going to rely heavily on computer graphics, and it does it well. Gollum is great visually. His body is gaunt and faded from decades without exposure to sunlight. The texture mapping or bump-mapping or whatever they do has the right amount of detail and blurriness. The eyes are huge but highly expressive. The wargs are a grotesque cross between hyenas and wolves, there is enough likeness to remind you of other animal hunters, but the body structure is different enough to look like it's own species. The hair rendering is well done; a far cry from the early days of the Coca-Cola polar bear. The thousands of Uruk-Kai soldiers look believable (although this is probably due in part to Jackson's wise decision not to focus on them for very long or upclose). The ents were a mixed bag. My vision was colored, as I half-expected them to look like the Night Elf buildings from Warcraft III. What I saw was a race of imposingly tall, but somewhat spindly looking beings. Some details were fantastic, like Treebeard's bark-like skin, or the mossy composition of his beard. But for a species that I supposed to look like trees, why are they covered in little to no foliage? A barren tree in the middle of a forest is not exactly a good disguise.

Directing-wise, there was only one thing that seemed very out of place to me, and that is Galadrial's narration in the middle. The last time we heard Galadrial narrate in this omniscient manner, where she dips her sight into all the different threads without being there herself, is at the beginning of Fellowship. So when the movie stopped midway and she begin explaining what was going on, it felt very out of place. This was not the beginning of the film; we had seen the things that she was telling us, so there was no need to remind us. My friend Rasthir pointed out that it was somewhat of an address to Elrond, but it is not established that she is talking to him. The last we saw she was on a boat in Lothlorien, not chilling in Rivendale. Without a definite audience, I could only assume she was talking to us. But again, WHY would she tell us these things that we just saw occur?

What ruined the movie for a lot of people I know, however, was the humor. No doubt everyone can agree that when you saw the movie in the theaters, there was a good amount of laughing at times. And unfortunately, the main perpetrators can be summed up in three words: Gimli, Gollum, and Treebeard. In the matter of Treebeard, the humor was already there. "I don't understand, but then again, you are very small." Lines like these existed in the book, to show how differently the Ent's way of life and thinking were different from Merry and Pippen. We perceive these comments to be funny, and they were written with the intent of being so to a degree.

Gollum is a different case. The scene where Smeagol and Gollum argue and fight for control reminded me of the dialogue between Norman Osborne and the Green Goblin in Spider-Man, which people at my screening laughed at as well. Perhaps this is because I've had friends that fought with their multiple personalities, but I found nothing inherently funny about the exchange. If only heard, the conversation is serious, a truly desperate struggle between the conflicting shards of his being. The conclusion then is that Gollum's appearance was what made the audience laugh. But even that is tenuous, as all possible measures were taken to differentiate between the different sides. Gollum's face was marked with a terrible scowl. His brow was furrowed in anger, and his eyes were focused and smoldering with hate. Seagol's face was soft and complacent, his eyes dilated and kind. And he smiled genuinely, if nervously. And perhaps this contrast is what made people laugh. Had Gollum and Smeagol been two different people (like identical twins or something), I doubt the audience would have laughed. But because they knew it was the same person, they found it hilarious that Gollum/Smeagol was talking to himself. And that can only blamed on the idiocy of the mob mentality. When I saw the movie, I did not laugh at the exchange, so I know that I did not find it funny. And it is my belief that, although the audience was stupid, it was not the intention of the moviemakers that it be funny either.

Gimli, however, has no such excuse. His lines were original (in that they did not appear in the book), they were there purely for humor's sake, and for the most part, they were misplaced. Some parts I didn't have a problem with, like when Gimli was talking to Eowyn. They were making small talk, and both he and Aragorn were obviously trying to lighten her mood. Another one I didn't mind was the "tossing" bit. This was funny because we, as an audience, find humor in the fact that Gimli, who once was too proud to be thrown, understands the necessities of the situation. But the wall scene, where he complained about not being able to see anything, was too much. The battle is about to begin, and the camera surveys the walls of the troops. The faces, young and old, are grim and rain soaked. And then Gimli has to open his mouth. The only consolation is that they made Gimli a funny bad-ass, rather than a funny clown; more like Chewbacca than Jar-Jar Binks, but even that is small consolation. Shame on you, Peter Jackson. There was enough humor in the running enemy count between the dwarf and Legolas, humor that wasn't out of place. Shame on you.

But all these issues were not enough to make the movie unenjoyable. It was thrill to watch, and the movie was very very far from badly done. I don't regret seeing the movie at all, and I recommend that everyone go see it. After you've seen Fellowship, of course. I give this movie 4.75 out of $5.

Read More......

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

[Article: I think this article spends too much time building the author's (my) back story, not nearly enough time analyzing the movie itself]

She made admiral before Picard did? What's up with that?

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. The holiday season is upon us, and you can see the change in the air. The weather is colder, the stores are decked out in decorations, and the movie industry brings out its big guns. Already, the theaters are steeped in blockbusters like 007: Die Another Day, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Equilibrium. Even the comedy genre offers up its bids for your $7 dollars (on average), with Analyze That and The Hot Chick (although personally I would advise against the last one). And it only get bigger, with a wide range of upcoming titles that cater to every taste, from historical crime sagas, to Coincidental Romances, to Leo DiCaprio vehicles with Christopher Walken in them, to Fantasy Epics that EVERYONE wants to see. With all the movies coming out, it means that competition is fierce and that the window of success is small for a movie to make it's mark.

Caught in the middle of it all is Star Trek Nemesis. The tenth installment in the Star Trek movie franchise, and the fourth to star the Next Generation cast, Nemesis has just five days before Two Towers. As an even numbered picture in the series, it is viewed with the double-edged conventional belief that it will be better than the odd numbered movies. The film centers around Shinzon, portrayed by the very capable Tom Hardy (Black Hawk Down), a deprecated human clone of Captain Jean-Luc Picard. What is striking is that he has spent much of his life on the planet Remus, the bastard of the twin home planets of the Romulan Empire. The entire planet of Remus is subjugated to Romulus, the shiny "civilized" side of the Empire, made to do all the arduous work. Think the Morlocks from The Time Machine (I reference the superior book, not the atrocity that is the movie). So when he stages a coup of the Romulan Senate and declares himself sole praetor, his request for peace comes with a healthy does of skepticism from the United Federation of Planets. Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E is sent to represent the Federation in the matters, and from there things get more complicated.

I grew up in a lucky time for sci-fi fans. The Next Generation was in heavy rotation in the syndicated television circuit, and the wide exposure resulted in a widespread interest among the general population. Although "Trekkies" were still considered a socially outcast group, it was not unusual for people to admit that they had found an episode or two enjoyable, even if they did not have a fanatical devotion to the series. I loved it. I was/am a hardcore geek, and I thought the show was spectacular. Here was a show that was well-written and yet still optimistic not only of the future, but of human nature in general. I had the encyclopedia, I had the phaser and tricorder toys, I even had the uniform, which I busted out time and time again on Halloween.

So when word that a tenth movie was being made, my first reaction was nothing short of excitement. Of course, I weighed this against reviews of the previous movie, Insurrection, which was generally panned. I bided my time, not seeking out any additional information about it, so that by the time it was released (today), I only knew of a few basic plot points.

I liked it. It was a good solid movie. Not the best, nor the most exciting, but definitely well executed. It felt like a larger, more expensive version of a TNG episode, and I mean that in a good way. The pacing was very good, unlike Generations, which cruised through the story at ridiculous speeds. There were lighthearted moments and good lines interspersed throughout. The plot had a few bumps in it. In particular, the dune-buggy scene seemed somewhat forced. Hovercrafts have been featured in continuity several times prior to the movie, so why on earth would Starfleet develop a four-wheeled vehicle? The new Romulan ship fired while cloaked, a feat that had not been attempted since The Undiscovered Country, which begs the question as to why we had not seen it employed earlier. One would think that with more than a hundred years between, with the technology obviously surviving during that time span, a case here or there of a cloaked firing vessel would have popped up. And there is a matter of Shinzon's viceroy. But all these are semantics that only require a short leap of faith.

The meat of the story is an interesting concept. What defines a person? Is it your genetic heritage, your life experiences, or both? Presented on the two different sides of the spectrum are Picard and Shinzon, good and bad in respective, simplified terms. One has had a loving and supportive life, and one has known little but battle and hardship. But instead of choosing just one stance, the movie instead touches on the subjects and leaves the answer to the audience. While it is clear that different lives had made different people, is the capacity for evil within Picard, or is it inherent only in his dark clone? To another extent, does the enemy have the ability within himself to be good, or has it been erased by his experiences?

Out of a $5 dollar scale, I give it a solid four dollars (keeping in mind that I was raised on Trek, take that as you will).
[I think my expectations for this movie were just too low, leading to the inflated grade. I think I would give it a three out of five now]

Read More......

On Nazis

[ARCHIVE: This was a short explication of a long-standing observation between myself and my peers. I kinda like it, but I'd probably have to put in a lot more references and citations to make it a real article. Also, I am not saying the Nazis weren't evil, just that they are so readily and unquestionably accepted as so.]

Last Wednesday, I was playing the new Wolfenstien for a good number of hours. It's a lot of fun, and a good stress reliever. I play both Allies and Axis, and usually I tend to be Axis, since my chosen player class (Medic) is better suited for defensive work. But for that particular gaming run, I found myself on the side of the Allies the majority of the time. And though I did pretty well (not an l33t m4st3r, but not a newb either), I got myself frustrated sometimes. And when I got particularly emotional, I found myself spewing insults like, "Die! Die, you elitist Aryan fucks!"

So after that I watched The Twilight Zone (the new one, with Forest Whitaker). The premise was that this woman went back in time, and became Adolf Hitler's nanny. She has this one opportunity to kill the child and save the future lives of millions. She spends the entire episode trying to justify to herself killing a baby. In the end, she grabs wittle Adolfie and jumps in the river, drowning herself and the child (apparently, she doesn't know how to swim). The kicker is that the other housekeeper sees her, and instead comes back to the Hitler household with a baby she bought off a homeless Jew on the street. and that's who Adolf Hitler was.

And I thought to myself, "Man, the Nazis were the greatest thing to befall fiction."

Now, hear me out. Current American society is trying to vilify Iraqis as "evil." I mean really, we all know that's what Dubya is trying to do, so he can go forth with "Gulf War II: This Time it's Personal." But even with all that propaganda he's trying to push down our collective throats, different viewpoints are still considered. There's enough journalistic material in magazines, newspapers, and websites that, at the very least, pose the idea that not all Iraqi's are evil, just a very vocal/powerful minority. Which is as it should be. In any conflict, all sides should be presented, no matter which side you're going to choose. And sometimes, as in the present case, this makes people consider the shades of moral gray, when it could be easily (thought wrongly) cast in strictly black and white.

Except Nazis. Think about it. When a story calls for a group of human villains that are undeniably evil, you get Nazis. More creative writers have employed other groups, like a ragtag band of ex-soldiers-turned-mercenaries, or psychotically deranged cults. But the easy way out has always been Nazis. Nazis are universally understood to be inherently bad, except when thought of by other Nazis. This has been tenuously proven by media reports. Consider the medias vilification of games such as Counter-Strike and Soldier of Fortune. These games have been constantly cited by the media as violent games that desensitize children to violence. But Wolfenstien has been less than a footnote in such articles. Why?

Angry Jerry Falwell: "These games our corrupting our nation's youth! Look at this: weapons of mass destruction, blood everywhere, it is unforgivable. How can you condone the massive amounts of death?"
Activision: "Well, you shoot Nazis."
Angry Jerry Falwell: "Oh. So what's the problem?"

Okay, so it's not exactly like that. But just think for a minute. How many people would contest that the Nazi regime was evil? (Except for that one wacko who keeps trying to prove that the holocaust never happened).

[07:57pm] Wed, Dec 11th, 2002
To followup on the previous post, I got this excerpt from an Activision Press release, which illustrates my point rather well (said point being that everybody finds death and destruction to be perfectly acceptable as long as Nazis are the targets).

"For fans of Return to Castle Wolfenstein and new players alike, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory gives gamers an entirely new opportunity to devastate the forces of the Fatherland," said Larry Goldberg, executive vice president, Activision Worldwide Studios.

Read More......

The Two Towers (PS2)

[ARCHIVE: This is an old post I wrote up about LotR: The Two Towers PS2 game. It was right in the middle of the trilogy's release, so demand as well as supply was high. I think it's the first "article" I wrote up about a video game.]

So to kind of retouch on the issue of epic video games from a few posts back, I bought The Two Towers video game over break. My video game library had been stagnant for a while, so I picked it up on a whim.

NOT an epic game.

Imagine Dynasty Warriors. Now imagine Dynasty Warriors set in Middle Earth. That's the basic jist of Two Towers, in nearly every aspect. With a few minor exceptions, you play as Aragorn, Legolas, or Gimli starting in the last half of Fellowship up through the battle at Helm's Deep. It's very much an action game through and through. There's a rudimentary level system, in which you receive experience in accordance with how much finesse you dispatch enemies with. You can then trade in experience points to buy new combos and moves.

Graphics wise, the game is pretty good during gameplay. The problem is that the cutscenes (at least, those that are not supplied by movie footage) are also done in engine, and while the results may have been acceptable in years past, they don't stand up to the standards set today in lifelike body language and facial detail. This is compounded by how heavily the game relies on movie visuals to move the story forward. All the character and set designs are taken almost directly from the movie, and a majority of the cutscenes are just clips of the films yoinked out. This makes the in-engine scenes look even less unpleasant. The camera stays a fair distance away during play though, so the visuals are passable enough to the eye.

Unfortunately, the all too-familiar problem of camera placement rears its head here, although it's more aggrivating than usual. The POV is a mixture of predetermined angles and player tracking, which works surprisingly well most of the time. But sometimes the camera will continue tracking you, even when the view is completely blocked. But the biggest gripe is the angle switching. At one point in the game, the camera flips complete 180 degrees when you pass a certain threshold. This caused me to switch back and forth between two angles many times, because down was forward in one screen but back in the other. Most of the time, the camera does a fairly good job. But when it's bad, it's really bad.

The controls are fairly straightforward. You have quick and fierce attacks, as well as ranged weapons, finishing moves, and parries. A noteworthy innovation is the use of the right analog stick for attacking purposes. Horizontal movement will result in quick attacks, while vertical moves are interpreted as fierce attacks. I'm fairly certain this was an attempt to employ a method similar to the sword control used in MGS2, although far less developed. In my opinion, they should have cribbed it directly so that you could actually control the direction of your blade.

A nice addition would have been some sort of targeting system. Many times I tried to stab a downed opponent, only to smite the dirt next to him. It would have been nice to have some sort of guarantee that my attacks were directed towards an opponent at all times. Since this is a melee style game, I can understand why it's important to be able to pivot and engage multiple enemies at one time. And while I agree that having a totally tunneled field of damage would be detrimental, some sort of either soft or optional lock-on system would make the game a little less frustrating. Past games like Kingdom Hearts and to a lesser extent Eternal Darkness have executed such a system with great success.

The strength of the game is in gameplay, and the strength of the gameplay comes in the level designs. There are no jumping puzzles to be found here. The level challenges (so far) have been fairly well thought out. In the first stage, the only way to damage the Naz-Gul is with a lit torch. The first battle at Helm's Deep requires you to not only to dispatch the attacking orcs, but to kick down their scaling ladders. Playing through the levels is pretty fun.

The game is also rather fair about keeping the player well equipped. Your heath is running low? An orc will drop a health vial. Need arrows to get past the next few enemies? You'll find an extra quiver in the next treasure box. So only by playing very poorly will you ever die during the levels. But interspersed every now and then are boss battles, which suck the fun out of the game and cause the momentum to come to a screeching halt. The bosses all have a certain particular pattern to be exploited or they will be impossible to beat. So the battles are not challenging in a rewarding sense but in a meticulous, boring, wearing down sense.

All in all, the game is fun to play, if not particularly groundbreaking. If I had to rate it, I'd give it a three out of five.

[Looking back, I think I'd rather change my rating to two out of five.]

Read More......