Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie
Review: This followup to Fellowship of the Ring is superb. It moves a little fast at times, but the storytelling is incomparable. The acting is very good, and we get to see a different side of the relationships in the fellowship.Once again, the special effects are amazing, and the cinematography is breathtaking. I liked this installment in the Lord of the Rings better, or equal to to Fellowship of the Ring. This continuation becomes a little darker, and ends on a note of foreshadowing. I love this movie, and would reccomend adding this movie to your collection.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant movie, so-so adaptation
Review: This brief review (a longer one will follow when the DVD is released) is only to say that in retrospect, while "The Two Towers" is a brilliant film all by itself, the way it played loose with the book begins to nag me more and more. As with "The Fellowship Of The Ring", it would have been an even greater film had they just stuck completely to Tolkien's original words and scenes; the new scenes that replace them in the film are fine, but they do not improve on the original and have a slightly over-dramatic feel that seems gratuitous (especially Aragorn's death, which holds no dramatic tension at all since anyone who read the book would realize immediately that he will be revived in no time, since he plays a huge role in "Return of The King"). Although I realize that a three-hour film could never hope to contain everything in the book, they should have at least tried to make everything that was in there as faithful as possible, and I would rather have had some scenes that were cut from the book in place of Aragorn's protracted "death" sequence. Anyways, I know I sound like a whiner but "The Two Towers" is kind of like the Mona Lisa, and tampering with it is no small item. I am just thankful that the end result was still pretty amazing in all departments, thanks to all involved; the CGI Gollum sends chills down the spine.
Rating:
Summary: WOW! EXCELLENT MOVIE!!!
Review: Before the Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring came out, I had never heard of the The Lord of the Rings series. Thanks to Peter Jackson, I am now hooked to it and can't wait until the third one. But anyway, The Two Towers (in my opinion) was better than The Fellowship of the Ring. There was more action and the story was going along instead of just introducing the characters. I have read the books and I must say that The Two Towers was a really good book. I would recommend it to anyone. However, I didn't really like the fact that they stopped and started the movies (1&2) in different places than the books. The end of the Two Towers ends earlier than the book so they are going to have to make the last movie longer so they can fit the rest of the Two Towers into it. Tolkien was an incredible author and I can't believe someone tried to make his books into a movie because it is (or in this case WAS) an impossible task. People tried to make The Lord of the Rings movies before and I am sure they wouldn't have come close to Jackson's version. I love this movie and EVERYONE should see it.
Rating: 
Summary: really, really, very, extremely, hideously bad movie
Review: This movie is really, really, very, extremely, hideously bad. I would neither watch it again nor would I reccomend
that anyone else watch it because it is so really, really, very, extremely, hideously bad. It smells of rotten eggs and
dead fish. It tastes like spoiled meat and burnt cookies. It is just so really, really, very, extremely, hideously bad.
Rating:
Summary: Beter than Krull (by a distance)
Review: Who cares if the film follows the book to the letter!!
Both Lord of the Rings' Movies have taken the film industry into another era. I love both the movies and could watch them over and over. Could it be that these are arguably the best movies ever made?? I know that I have to wait for the third installment, I dont want to!! But it will be worth the wait. Fantastic special effects, great acting and incredible scenery.
Rating:
Summary: someone
Review: I think that this movie was very good. As another reviewer said it's not the book, but what everyone needs to remember is that if it was the book word for word, scene for scene it would be much longer (though I don't think I would mind a longer movie), most people think that they are too long even now. I would have loved it if the producers had felt that they could be 100% true to the book, but every movie has a budget, and they couldn't afford to take a risk on these three since they had no clue as to how popular the movies would be.
Rating: 
Summary: A Film is Just a Film
Review: ...but a good cigar is a smoke. Seriously, I have to get into the "purist"-"anti-purist" argument about The Two Towers. As someone points out, you can't film faithfully any of the books in The Lord of the Rings trilogy in the space of a normal movie--you'd need 15-20 hours, who knows? That means leaving parts out, and the Director making choices about what to portray, etc. BUT, to my mind, that does not mean gratuitously changing and altering important parts of the book that had a real and serious meaning in the overall vision and mythology of Tolkien. I agree with the reviewer who pointed out why it was important the Elves were not at Helm's Deep. There are a number of instances like this. Why, why, why? is what I'd ask Peter Jackson. I can understand why you have to cut things out; but why are you putting things in?--that you've made up? Changing meanings? You can't improve on Tolkien, my friend, the richness and depth of his imagination and, most important, the subtly and understatement of his characterizations and emotions. Neither your version of the Aragorn-Arwen romance, nor the Battle of Helm's Deep, is as compelling as what is portrayed in the literature. And it's not that movies are a different medium; using Tolkien's original conception of them would have made the films better, not worse. Aragorn falling over a cliff?--puh-leeze
Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable, Nothing More
Review: The Lord of the Rings films exist solely to entertain; no deep thoughts, complex storylines, or historical junk to get in the way! Excellent visual effects, decent direction, and a much better version of the book (no long winded descriptions of things people don't care about here!) make it enjoyable. Now, is it worthy of Best Picture? No. Is it worthy of the nomination? No. The films were nominated for the same reason Star Wars was: it brings forth brilliant new visuals. It is nothing more than something too watch on a lazy, dog-dangling afternoon. Doesn't mean it's bad, just that it ain't Best Picture material (though the third film will probably win). Shut off your brain (for the most part) and enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Almost as good as Fellowship
Review: Another great movie based on the Tolkein books! This one is action, action, action! The plot moves a bit slower than the first, and deviated more from the book, but it was still excellent and well worth seeing. I realize that writers and directors cannot be fully faithful to the books but I have to bones to pick. First, why is Faramir of a totally different character in the movie than in the film? He is supposed to be nothing like Boramir. Second, I realize they wanted to make good use of Liv Tyler, but some of the stuff with her in it is condradictory to the books. Anyway, this one is not quite as great as Fellowship, but still very good. Gollum was so life-like and true to character, he really made the movie for me. I also greatly enjoyed the Dead Marshes. I can't wait to see the expanded edition!!!
I actually would give this 4.5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Ok, the animation was good.....
Review: But come on! 3 hours to say what could have been said in 1!?? The dialouges were excruiatingly long and some of it very unnecessary. The action scenes could have been better and more original.
|
