It didn't hurt to sit through "The Fellowship of the Ring" one more time, except for the minor dent the evening put into my wallet. I can never just sit in a movie theater. I have to have my junk food, and we all know that is where the theater makes its money. But munching out on hot dogs and nachos is part of the experience, and one should live life to the fullest.

So, I sat through the first "Lord of the Rings" movie once again and couldn't help but notice a few things. For example, a certain "movie goofs" Web site claims there is a continuity error near the end of "Fellowship", when Frodo saves Sam from drowning. Well, either they went back and re-edited that scene, or a lot of fans have gotten it all wrong.

The so-called error occurs when Frodo reaches down and grasps Sam's hand. You see Frodo's right hand grasp Sam's right hand. Then they cut to the boat, where Frodo is helping Sam aboard. We very briefly see Elijah Wood switch hands and pull Sean Astin in with his left arm. Continuity error? What continuity error? I think you just have to see the movie a half dozen times before you begin to notice that Aragorn's left shirt sleeve is torn. And what was with the big pimple on Sam's forehead?

On the other hand, some of the so-called changes (departures from Tolkien) I had noted in past viewings appear to have been more in my mind than in the movie. For example, in Galadriel's account of the history of the Rings, which occurs in her voiceover for the prologue, one easily gets the impression that the Nine Rings were made specifically for Men -- that they were not made for the Elves. But later on, when Aragorn tells Frodo and the other Hobbits about the Nazgul, he says that Sauron gave them their Rings. Galadriel's statement about Nine Rings being intended for men seems to be contradicted by Aragorn's assertion that Sauron tricked the Nine.

The full history of the Rings, of course, is really only revealed in Unfinished Tales anyway. It's not like Peter and the gang had film adaptation rights to that book. And many people have assumed, through the years, that the Ring-rhyme in The Lord of the Rings accurately reflects the history of the Rings. It does not. It merely tells where they all ended up. More or less (it leaves out the fact that four ended up with dragons, and three plus nine were recovered by Sauron).

Of course, egregious puristic errors roll off the film, and those who wish to nit-pick an award-winning film to death have much grist to grind. But tonight I went to see the new trailer, not to nit-pick the movie to death. Although I have to admit that the audience did get a little figdety every time Hobbits started hugging someone (in fact, there is only one hug in the entire book, although there are several embraces, which are described as hands-on-shoulders, not arms-around-torsos).

Every time I see Frodo leap into Gandalf's arms, I can't help but think of Tony Shahoub rounding up his alien friends in "Galaxy Quest" for a group hug after Tim Allen agrees to their plan for repairing the ship. But I have wandered out of Middle-earth completely, and this was supposed to be about the "Two Towers" trailer.

And what about the trailer? It was the best four minutes of the evening. Yes, it was better than the movie, but only because I've seen the movie often enough now that I know Gandalf falls into the chasm and Frodo leaves the Fellowship with Sam.

The trailer, if we can call it that (I suppose "preview" would be a better term for it), was fantastic. We finally got to see Treebeard. The whole audience let out a collective "Whoa!" when we saw his face. Does he look like a tree? I have no idea. It was the eye which got our attention. But I think we finally have a hint about what sort of creature owns the eye in the Internet Preview which was released in April of 2000 (that would be almost 2 years ago -- my how time flies). I think that's an Ent eye, folks. I could be mistaken, but I think that's what it is.

Other great shots include Brad Dourif slinking around a corner as Grima Wormtongue, Bernard Hill as an astounding Theoden (reciting the poem about Eorl the Young, no less). And, yes, we finally get to see that hordes of Elves will stand beside the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep. Why? I suppose Galadriel decides to send an Elven army to Rohan. She does appear in the second movie, as does Arwen (sans sword), and many Elves.

Mirando Otto makes an impressive Eowyn. She's very stern, very beautiful, and very much in despair. I can't wait to see her face off with the Lord of the Nazgul. I have to believe with all my heart that she will indeed do the deed which has caused so much controversy in the halls of Tolkien fandom through the decades -- and, hopefully, Merry will get to whack the nasty old critter, too.

The obvious incongruencies in the first movie (such as the fact that the Nazgul sense the Ring miles away when Frodo puts it on at Bree and then miss his room entirely as they attack bolsters in the night) are probably going to continue in the second movie. Why? Because some things just look so damned cool, one easily comes away from this preview thinking, "They just had to do that -- it wouldn't have worked any other way."

For example, why does Theoden recite the poem celebrating Eorl's victory and not Aragorn? I don't know. They didn't show enough of the movie for us to get a sense of what leads up to the recitation. But, DAMN!, it was a good performance. It's a little early for Oscar nomination predications, but keep your eye on Bernard Hill. If his performance throughout the movie is consistent with what we saw tonight, he may indeed be given some consideration by Hollywood's award factories (and there are the Golden Globes and all the overseas awards, too).

Gandalf the White also appears in the preview. I wondered if he would look like Saruman, as he appears to in the book....

We were granted a brief glimpse of Fangorn Forest as Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas entered the woods. This appeared to be very similar to the way the book describes the event. One of the most frequent criticisms I've seen of the first movie is that it so little resembles the book many fans feel cheated (well, okay, who didn't think the purists would hollar?).

I have to admit, though, that my purist heart was gladdened by the footage they revealed of the battle at Helm's Deep. Yes, yes, there are Elves there -- but the Elves look cool and I'm sure to receive a lot of email from women telling me just how cool they look. And I like getting email from the ladies, truth be told, even if it is all about Orlando Bloom.

Orlando looks cool and deadly in the preview, too. I'm sure his fans will NOT be disappointed in the least. Of course, he could probably whisper, "Alas! I feel faint", keel over dead, and never do anything else in the movie, and his fans would still have heart attacks and heavy breathing spells.

So, there you have it. My initial reaction to the "Two Towers" preview. I may not have scooped anyone, but then, I didn't set out to do that. I am looking forward to "The Two Towers", and hope it has all the things which I loved about "The Fellowship of the Ring": Ian McKellen doing Gandalf the way Tolkien must have imagined the old wizard; Viggo Mortensen being Aragorn (he is as close to my vision of Aragorn as any living man can get, I think); the sweeping cinematography which takes your breath away. I love those sequences where the audience is taken on a swoop down into Isengard's pits. So what if there was nothing like that in the book?

It would be nice to see a couple of things adjusted, though. For example, why doesn't Glamdring glow (in "The Fellowship of the Ring") as in the book? Sting was just a knife Bilbo picked up along the way. Glamdring was a legendary sword. Let's see a glowing Glamdring, guys. And is Aragorn the only Ranger left in Middle-earth? We at least got to hear about them in Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring. One gets the impression Aragorn has no one left to him in the movie. That's just not right. Let's see a few more Rangers. Please, tell me there were other Rangers involved in the filming (okay, Barliman tells Frodo that Aragorn is "one of them Rangers" -- but that's just barely a blip on the radar screen).

All in all, it was an enjoyable evening. I'm sure other people will spill a few beans I've left unturned. I can't say that everyone will want to sit through three hours of "Fellowship" just to see the preview, but once you get there, the journey seems worthwhile.

Peter Jackson talks about the preview in the latest incarnation of the official Lord of the Rings Web site. I am hoping we'll eventually see the preview come out on Apple.Com or some other source. I want to be able to watch it again without having to sit through the movie. It may have seemed like a great marketing concept, but the theater I sat in tonight was laregly empty.