Rating: 
Summary: Tolkien Enthusiasts... Take a Pill
Review: ...If you truly took the time to read the books and understand the history of Middle Earth, you would also realize that there is WAY TOO MUCH to put in a movie. Give Petie some credit... this movie was shelved for many years because no one could put it together! The movie is a THEATRICAL REPRESENTATION of the books... and is based on the books. Give the guy some credit for adding in a few things for entertainment value. I too was a little dissapointed that many things were left out of the movies, but let's face it... if complete detail was utilized... this trilogy would have been nothing shy of 20 hours long! The movies are wonderful people... and although not exactly like the books... still an exceptional piece of work for Peter Jackson....
Rating:
Summary: Best Film of the Year
Review: What's with people rating this movie one star? Because it doesn't follow the books perfectly? What a bunch of bologne. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is one of the most overrated set of books of all time. Certainly the story and world Tolkien created are classic masterpieces, but Tolkien was not an accomplished author, and his writing skills leave a lot to be desired.Enter the films. Years ago when I heard the trilogy was being made into a live action film I was both excited and worried. Excited that the one of the greatest fantasy stories of all time would be put to the big screen and worried because hollywood almost always takes great ideas and turns them to garbage. My review of Fellowship of the Ring explains how delighted I was not only to see the film done competently but incredibly well. I was now no long worried about any of the following films; I could just be excited. I must confess that I am a bit confused at why Peter Jackson took even more liberties with this film than even Fellowship of the Ring. Some acts like trying to make the audience believe Aragorn fell off a cliff and died doesn't make sense. I understand that a screenplay and a novel can't be told the same way, but is there anyone who doesn't know that the king in Return of the King is Aragorn? He can't die, so adding a scene like that that wasn't in the book just seemed to be redundant. The other difference that most people have a problem with (besides the Elves appearing) is that of Faramir's character. Well, despite that one of Tolkien's biggest weaknesses in the writing department is characterization, Faramir was established as a noble soul who did not try to take the ring from Frodo. However, after seeing the film several times I don't think Jackson was wrong to change the events involving Faramir. It's important for one to remember that a filmmaker has only 2-3 hours in which to tell a story. Jackson has already portrayed that the ring is so powerful that no man can turn it away. Too much explaination would have been needed for the non-book reading audience had Faramir acted exactly as he had in the book. In the end, Faramir's actions do not betray his character. He does not take the One Ring and sets Frodo free to continue his journey. Only the way about it is different. People complain also that the elves do not show up in the book as they do in the film. What poppycock really. It's one of the most powerful scenes in the film and is something that happens in the overall story anyway. Jackson only changes the timeframe in which it happens. The same is true with Eomir showing up at the end with Gandalf. Cinematically it's much better to have Eomir showing up to save the day than some other character you've never heard of. Talk about contrived plot developement. Finally readers of the book know that the end of the Two Towers deals with the She-spider-creature Shelob. Jackson was as wise to move this to the next film as he was to move Borimir's death to the first. The fact is, Jackson loves The Lord of the Rings. He's trying to make the best films possible, and I'm glad he's a skillful enough filmmaker to know that Tolkien's books could never be made into a movie as they are written. If it weren't for the fantastic story and world he created, the books would be garbage. Jackson did take some liberties with the story to make these films, and certainly some are questionable. However, it shouldn't be surprising that the only people that bash on the film also happen to be Tolkien bootlickers who think any deviation from the books is blasphemy. I and the millions of others (whether they know it or not) who helped make this movie into one of the biggest boxoffice successes of all time are certainly happy with the exemplary work Jackson and Co. did in carrying Tolkiens masterpiece books into masterpiece films.
Rating: 
Summary: The Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers
Review: If you're a Tolkien purist, with little appreciation or understanding for what it takes to screenplay a complicated book, and bring it to life, you won't like this movie. To follow the books, line for line, nuance for nuance, would make for 3-20 hr episodes, that would bore an Ent to death. As it was, it bordered on being a bit of commercial travel guide for New Zealand, but you had to admit, if you were looking for Middle Earth, they found it and brought it to life, scene after scene. Could have spent a bit more time with some of the sub rather than Frodo and Sam, who were not prominent in the second book, but the confrontation at Helms Deep and the revenge on Saurman's Tower more than made up for it.
This will be more for keeping J.R.R, Tolkien alive in literature, as any has done for it author.
Rating:
Summary: One word--Exquisite!!
Review: I have never read the books, but in my opinion, I think the movie was truly excellent. I have only seen one movie that is almost exactly like the book (Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets), and don't ask me why, but I was really let down. Don't get me wrong; I thought it was an excellent movie as well; they did not skimp on wardrobe or scenery, etc. but for some reason it disappointed me that they didn't use any artistic merit and went totally "by the book". I am one of those people that look forward to not knowing scene by scene what is going to happen, and even though I haven't read the LOTR trilogy, after reading some of the reviews other people have submitted on Amazon.com, am glad that The Two Towers was different than the novel. Now I can look forward to reading it one of these days and feel like I am experiencing it for the first time. Besides--if they made movies long enough to encompass everything included in ANY book, it would either end up being so long and drawn out that they would have to split it up into more than one movie, or the pace would be going so fast that the audience would not be able to absorb every detail and get lost along the way. I for one would feel cheated if I had to wait another year (or more) to see a movie that only covered half a tome. So I encourage anyone who has been considering watching The Two Towers in the theater to do so--you will be greatly missing out if you do not. Even if you have an awesome home theater system of your own, nothing can compare to seeing a movie of this scope on the big screen. The beauty and splendor of this series is just astounding!! Nothing Compares!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Not just for nerds....
Review: To justify my title -- I'm a nerd. I've always been a nerd. I'm kind of proud of it. Solidly in the nerd camp, me. Okay? Okay. ;-) Most of the complaints I've heard against this film are from people who are upset because it doesn't follow the plot of the books exactly. And it doesn't. It is not a letter-by-letter adaptation of Tolkien. (When was the last time you saw a film that was?) A film is not a book. And I say this as someone who 1) did in fact read the trilogy and 2) Is usually the first to moan and complain when movies are not totally faithful, a habit I needed to be meticulously trained out of over the course of years: Book to film translation, like translation from language to language, is never merely the extension of the original. Exact translation (as the teach us in Lit. Crit.) is impossible. You're working with a new "language" -- signs, signifiers, connotations -- new raw material, which must necessarily give you a new end result. It's the creation of a work in its own right, and the only fair way to judge it is -- is it successful of a piece, unto itself? And is it faithful to the spirit? And this film is. It SO is. It is a *good* film, well-plotted, well acted (only the teeniest bit campy :-), and logical, with important, timeless, universal themes, and it gives you the *heart* of the Tolkien text, if not all the details. (And actually, it gives you a much higher percentage of the details than you'd imagine, if you only judged by the angry people.) You talk to people who've seen the film but haven't read Tolkien, and get their reactions -- the reactions are very consistently the same ones that I have gotten from reading the books. The noble hero who looks beyond his own ambitions (and well being) to serve the greater need of his people/sovereign/world. The leader who recovers from manipulation/corruption to do his duty by his people. The trials of temptation and the slow corruption of power. The leader who recognizes the fallibility in his own first judgment in time to do the right thing. The neutral party confronted with a time where neutrality must be abandoned. Loyalty, honor; despair and the overcoming thereof. And all the naturism vs. technology and so on. A friend of mine -- who had not even known Tolkien was Catholic -- went on at great length, and with great excitement (you should have seen the light in his eyes), about "the Marian imagery and themes" in the film after having seen it, and how the film "made him feel like a better person for having seen it". AND.... he's gone out to buy the books -- not only the trilogy, but tons of other Tolkien works and apocrypha. This is a friend who is "not into fantasy" (you know those), a friend I had to BEG to see "Fellowship" for about a year. I kid you not. (And he's proselytizing his little nephews and nieces. It's a little scary, actually.) Dudes, they *get* it. The magic is there -- I've seen it in so many of my friends' eyes. The path to it is *slightly* different, but not enough to take anything away from its merit. Frankly, we purists make up the loudest contingent of LoTR fans -- but not the biggest. Not by a long shot. If we were the only audience, the film would've flopped. Instead, it's beating out Harry Potter (who-HOO!! YES!!!) and bringing a new generation, nerd and non-nerd alike, :-) to the written works of Tolkien. Jackson is passing on the essence of Tolkien to a much broader audience, and he's doing a dang good job of it. And I say hear hear. Five stars for that alone.
Rating: 
Summary: THREE AND A HALF
Review: The action in the movie is good. It has most of the elements of the story in it. What brings the movie down in mine opinion is a lack of truth to the storyline. The story has a little too much embellishment for my taste. All elements of the story were altered greatly from the books except one. The one exception
was the sequence of Gollum. His scenes, particularly those were he was arguing with himself, were perfect. As for the rest of it, I liked it for the action, but I am afraid that people who read the books after they see the movies will be disappointed, feeling that the books let them down.
Rating:
Summary: This is an Excellent Movie (Give Peter a Break!)
Review: Don't be fooled by the fact that this movie is long, starts in the middle of the story and has several significant changes to the original book's plot: it is still an excellent movie - one of the best movies of all time (certainly one of the best sequels of all time). First, in response to those who have read the books before and were upset by the changes made in the movies: I first read Tolkien's books when I was thirteen and have loved them ever since. However, devoted as I am to them, I still love Peter Jackson's movie adaptations in spite of the changes he has made to them. The simple reason is this: THE MOVIES ARE NOT THE BOOKS! If you want to get the original story straight from Tolkien's pen and imagine it in exactly YOUR own way, then read the book. The simple fact is that when movies are made, one person's (or in the case of this movie, many persons') vision about that book becomes reality. Some changes are made, but that doesn't mean the movie is bad, it just means that it is a different piece of art from the book, and that difference in and of itself isn't a bad thing. I will make this concession: I found the changes to Faramir's character a little jarring as well, but I don't think that's any reason to reject the whole movie. We haven't seen the end of this trilogy yet, and it seems a bit premature to reject the whole series because of one questionable addition. Besides, considering all the things that Peter Jackson got RIGHT (Gandalf, Frodo, Eowyn, the Balrog, Galadriel, Grima Wormtounge, etc., etc., etc. - could you make cooler armor or weapons or scenery than they did, or pick better actors?) let's give the man a break. This movie is excellent, as was the first. The Lord of the Rings as a whole is one of the finest tales ever written and is admirably retold by Peter Jackson and all those who worked on it. The one thing that this story has that shines out the most is that it is a tale of passion and friendship, hope and nobility in a world full of darkness and apathy and fear. Those central themes shine out in these movies, and for that and for their beauty as films I think they will go down in history as some of the best movies ever made.
Rating:
Summary: Best movie of 2002
Review: This movie was much better than the first one. The effects were mind blowing, my favorite was Treebeard. It was worth the wait, and I can't wait till The Return of the King! To sum it all up, this movie rocked!!
Rating:
Summary: The True version of this film still lays ahead.
Review: The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring Special Expanded Edition has spoiled me. I saw a film turned from a good fantasy film now changed into an epic masterpiece with just 30 minutes of new scenes and re-editing. After enjoying this film many times I went to see the Two Towers knowing that no matter how good (or how bad) it may be, I couldn't help but always wonder what the 'real' version of this film will be like come Nov 2003. Will it become twice as good as Fellowship became? What we have here is a very good fantasy film, that really throws the book out the window. I feel pretty bad for Jackson who has put himself in quite a pickle. Not only must he worry about fitting ALL the events that occur in the next book but now he has to squeeze in events from the end of the second movie just to have it all make more sense. This is impossible. I had a real problem with the way the film began. We all remember what happened to Gandalf, it seems weird to be re-watching the first film for pretty much no reason. I hope he re-edits the intro just like he did for Fellowship. Another problem I had with this film was that while it continued with it's, "the story continues" type endings. It really had a chance with this film to give the audience a real cliff hanger especially with the Shelob Spider sequence in the book. Instead we are treated too (but almost bored by) a overly long battle sequence that is given little time in the book but we spend the whole moving preparing for.Another problem is this whole Aragon pretending to die thing. With the next film this will begin to feel like a gimmick now that Frodo and Gandalf almost died in the first film. I didn't like that merry and pippin spend the ENTIRE film on Ent Beard walking. It was almost laughable. I also thought that the Ents should have come to the conclusion of war at the meeting just like in the book. It makes more sense, how else could all those ents appear from out of nowhere? Didn't they know all their kind were being killed since the first film? I found that hard to believe. Merry and Pippin become so courageous and brave in the book and yet are given little to do by Jackson, that was just stupid. Now beside all that I really did enjoy the movie. Gollum was amazing to watch, and he was my favorite character in the book so it was a real treat. But this book is my favorite of all three so I was most dissapointed with the sacrifices Jackson made. I fear that Return of the King will include many sacrifices as well, including the fact that he may take out the entire scorching of the shire, for running time sake. While this was a very long part of Return of the King (especially after a nail biting conclusion) as part of the book it deserves to be seen in the next film. Here is my hope in these films. That the expanded version of each film be what Fellowship became. And they, in the end, will be the real trilogy that should have been seen in theatres. Here's to a good film that wil become better by the end of 2003.
Rating:
Summary: Tolkien, the MASTER..........
Review: Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, has much to recommend it as a outstanding adaptation of a breathtaking classic,
while (thankfully) making no pretences at being anything other than
what J. R. R. Tolkien originally meant it to be; the MIDDLE of that very intriguing tale. Somehow, the middle book was adapted to film in such a way that one doesn't feel cheated at being able to know only part of the whole story.
How were they able, for example, to keep its loose ends untied and its secrets still locked away -for the third and final movie to uncover;
while still allowing the viewer to come away from it feeling as if unresolved items have been solved!?! Understandably, this middle movie can't follow the books sequence as undeviatingly
as they were able to do in the first, or the real focus of Tolkien's tale would be lost via condensed and reduced scene cuts;
in fact, the really surprising factor is how well the slim sequence switch-a rounds take place!
These surreptitious modifications do no harm to the plot, while allowing for limitations films must always face when transferring text to visual screen. As an avid admirer of J. R. R. Tolkien's brilliant work, I can truly say that none of this trilogy has disgraced him.
The written word is finally coming to life without a flaw; and Tolkien would be proud!
| 
