Rating: 
Summary: Just as great as the first one.
Review: I saw this movie yesterday, and already I've overheard one comment from the theater I was at, as well as a comment from a workmate, who said that they were disappointed with something(s) about this movie. Whether it'd be that it didn't follow the book EXACTLY, or it just wasn't as good as the first. I understand that it doesn't follow the book exactly, but I beg to differ as far as it not being as good as the first movie.Sure, it doesn't follow the book exactly. Neither did the last one. In fact, as far as I know, there were probably just as many differences from the book in this movie as there were in the last. For example, in the book of "The Fellowship of the Ring," Gandalf takes many years to get back to the Shire(wasn't it like 50 years?) before he tells Frodo to set off on his quest to destroy the One Ring. Also, the ENTIRE Tom Bombadil scene was cut from the movie - including the scene where they obtain the swords to kill the Nazgul where they meet the Barrow-wights (I assume that perhaps the swords that Aragorn gave the hobbits at Weathertop are the swords that kill the Nazgul, but I can't be certain). Also, dialogue was switched around from what it was in the book, like someone in the movie saying a line that was originally someone else's line in the book. Or the same person who said a line in the book says it in the movie but at a different point in the story(a.k.a. Gandalf's "all we need to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us" speech and his story of Gollum; in the book it was at Bag End, but in the movie it was in Moria.) Also, we never see Gandalf talk to Radagast the Brown (another wizard). And, Boromir dies at the end of the movie, whereas he died at the beginning of the second book. Lastly, they never went to Farmer Maggot's house where we discover that Merry and Pippin knew something about Bilbo having the One Ring. And I know there were more changes. And what changes were made to "The Two Towers' story in the movie? Faramir was meaner, they didn't go to Gondor, we don't see Saruman wandering the woods, Elves were at Helm's Deep, Wormtongue makes it to Isengard before the Ents flooded it, Arwen was in it, Eowen went with them, and certain things were pushed back until the third movie. There were a few more, but there were not many more changes than what was done in the first film. And that's not what gets me. What gets me is that people complain about these changes, and NONE of them were bad! The movie still worked very well! It still stayed 90-95% true to the book(if you got that percentage on a term paper - that's an A grade my friends!). The only reason anyone would see these changes as bad is because "It wasn't in the books!" Come on! This movie was fantastic! It's still very true to the book, Gollum was cool and funny, Gimli was hilarious, and the battles were so epic in scale it's not even funny. The Ents were just as I had pictured them - both character and visual-wise. The conflict with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum was perfect. Helm's Deep was terrific and very epic in scope. And the destruction of Isengard was just amazing. We really got a great picture. I think ultimately when one goes to a movie and comes out loving it, they will build up the sequels to such high expectations that they end up disappointed. Why not just expect the sequels to NOT be as good, since it's impossible to capture lightning in a bottle - and then come out not so disappointed? This movie was awesome. Just as great as the first one. Rating: 10/10
Rating:
Summary: Stunning and heavy! But you need to see it twice.
Review: Okay, after a year of anticipation, I eagerly went to this movie on opening day. I can almost guarantee you will LOVE this movie, as long as you understand that: 1. Nothing can compare to the experience in the first movie where you saw all the characters for the first time and fell in love with them. and 2. This film is a bridge film, and as such doesn't really have a beginning or even remotely an ending and 3. According to the director of the three films, this one detracts from the book the most, and does so for many reasons including pacing, time restrictions and to a lesser extent, simplification of the complicated structure in the Two Towers book. as long as you go knowing these three things, you will be blown away by this film. Even if you don't, you will only be slightly less so. Now, for some details. Stop reading here if you want to avoid MINOR SPOILERS. First off, the movie picks up with Gandalf fighting the Balrog. Then joins Frodo and Sam in the wastes, where they are lost. There is no prologue to catch you up, so you must see the first movie if you want to understand this one. The main piece of the film deals with Rohan, which is being invaded by Sauraman's army. Theoden, their king, is hopelessly caught in a spell, and being manipulated by his advisor Grima, who is actually an agent of Sauraman's. When Gandalf returns and frees him, he realizes that they are in great peril, and orders everyone to Helm's Deep. Here, a heartwrenching last stand takes place, where even the older male children of Rohan are given swords and join in the fight. The second major story line follows Frodo and Sam, who meet up with Gollum, who is portrayed wonderfully by Andy Serkis. Gollum is truly a piteous creature, and struggles between wanting to redeem himself and his lust for the ring. Frodo and Sam also meet up with Faramir (Boromir's brother), and fans of the books may object to the way Faramir is portrayed. Faramir also desires to take the ring to Gondor, but changes his mind when he sees the power of the ring at work. In the book, Faramir struggled with what to do with Frodo, but not to the extent he does in the film. Finally, Merry and Pippin end up with Treebeard, a creature called an Ent. Ents take care of the trees, and are very tree-like themselves. The Ents are magnificently done, and the only disappointment is that we don't see more of them. However, they should appear for a little while in the third movie. While this film doesn't have as many poignant moments as the first, there are several heartwarming scenes. Sam will continue to be the poster child for loyalty, and will move you to tears at the end. If you liked the fellowship, go to this movie. You won't regret it. However, and this is important, SEE IT TWICE at least. This film is very different than the first, and there is a lot to catch. It is comparable to another bridge film, the Empire Strikes Back, which was my least favorite of the original 3 Star Wars movies when I first saw, but is now considered by myself and many others to be the best one.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie Ever Made!!
Review: If you thought "The Fellowship of the Ring" was amazing, that's nothing compared to "The Two Towers". Gimli(John Rhys-Davies) was hysterical. He is so small yet so determined and anxious. King Theoden(Bernard Hill) and Grima Wormtongue(Brad Dourif) gave amzing performances. The battle between Gandalf(Ian McKellen) and the Balrog was great. John Rhys-Davies and Andy Serkis provided great voices for Treebeard and Gollum/Smeagol. They definitely made the movie great. The return of Gandalf, who comes back as Gandalf the White, was very exciting. The Battle of Helms Deep was the best battle scene in movie history. It lasted almost thirty minutes. Other highly anticipated new characters - Eomer(Karl Urban), Eowyn(Miranda Otto), Faramir(David Wenham) - were great. And of course, although he wasn't in the movie much, Saruman(Christopher Lee) was very well portrayed. Once again, the movie was pretty true to the book except for a few parts which were exciting anyway. Like Wormtongue being somewhat romantic with Eowyn, Aragorn falling off of a cliff and then returning to Helms Deep, Wargs, and the appearances of Arwen(Liv Tyler), Elrond(Hugo Weaving), and Galadriel(Cate Blanchett). I was a little disappointed about not seeing Shelob or Saruman's staff being broken and Pippin being somewhat possesed by the Palantir, but the rest of the movie made up for it. Overall, it was the best movie ever made!
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but not as good as Fellowship of the Ring
Review: I made the mistake of reading The Two Towers last week in preparation for seeing this movie. The reason I say "mistake," is that director Peter Jackson has taken a great deal of license with this story. Had I not just read the book, I would be more able to judge Jackson's movie on its own merits. My first complaint is where the movie ends. The book ends with Frodo entering Mordor through Shelob's Lair. The movie ends a bit earlier--cutting out a crucial and exciting part. But many of Jackson's changes cut much much deeper into the fabric that JRR Tolkien originally wove. The Ent seige of Issengard is shortened and reduced in import, and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) does not confront Saruman (Christopher Lee)in the movie. That confrontation was central to the book. The battle at Helm's Deep is changed, too. In the book, the king sent the women and children to safety before marching to make a desparate stand against the Orcs in the great battle. The movie version of the king is a brave dunderhead. In the book, he thought clearly. The King's film-only decision to take the women and children with him to Helm's Deep lead to an ambush. I think Jackson did this because he wanted to create a lovers triangle between Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Eowyn (Miranda Otto), and Arwen (Liv Tyler). Arwen is never even mentioned in the book version of Two Towers as I recall. Some of the changes Jackson made must be chalked up to the difficulty of adapting books, especially epic books, to movies. The most noticable of these changes is the organization of the movie. The first half of the book follows Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merry, and Pippin. The second half of the book is exclusively about Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. That very clean break worked perfectly in the book, but movie goers want to know about everybody all at once. Jackson and team had no choice, I think. They had to jump from Frod to Aragorn and then to Merry and Pippin. Other changes, however, seem more like the director and writers taking liberties with a classic work. Just before the battle of Helm's Deep, Jackson has a company of Elves march into the fortress. In the book, Legolas was the only elf on the premises. I fail to see what this change added or why it was made. My biggest complaint is the way Jackson portrays Frodo's struggle with the ring. This is central to The Lord of the Rings--Frodo was not tempted to wear the ring during The Two Towers. The ring weighed him down, he could feel it trying to pull him to Sauran, but he never tried to wear it. In the movie, Frodo (Elijah Wood) is constantly tempted to wear the ring. And the movie version of Feramir, a soldier who finds Frodo and Sam, kidnaps the Hobbits because of his desire to have the ring. In the book, he closed his mind to the ring and aided the Hobbits. How did this change advance the story? One thing that does not disappoint is the visuals. Just wait until you see Andy Serkis playing Gollum. Using motion capture technology, Jackson and company have created a living-breathing creature. They managed to capture both Gollum's revolting side and his pathos. It is amazing. The battle at Helm's Deep is also amazing. Looking at the movie, you would think they created huge sets with thousands of actors in armor. It was, again, computers. There's a great article about how they did this on GameSpy.com. Throughout the movie, Jackson used a lot of film-making devices that reminded me of British films from the seventies. He had lots of shots where the camera was zoomed in on actors' eyes. The use of music reminded me of many of Pinewoods Studios movies. This was not particularly good or bad, it simply added a strange feel to the movie. It is an antiquated kind of movie making that added little. Gimli (John Ries Davies) did a good job in this movie, but the writers reduced the role of Gimli the Dwarf to that of comic relief. Too bad. Gimli is much more interesting as a proud warrior in the books, and his friendship with Legolas was more compelling as revealed by Tolkien. The danger here is that it is too easy to judge The Two Towers as an adaptation of an amazing book rather than as a movie and a stand-alone form of entertainment. The Two Towers is a good movie, and I think that the movie deserves four stars and no more. It would have been even better if the director had stuck more closely to the blueprint set out in the book, but it is still very entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie 4 and 1/2 Stars!!
Review: O.K so where do I start? First the good The cinematography was-Excellent it takes you and draws you into this world of Middle Earth, that in and of itself is stunning and it deserves that oscar at the very least(but will not get it if last year is any indication of things to come) The acting from all quarters was very good I particularly liked Orlando Bloom and Vorg(Aragon) these two performed the best in making their characters come alive. Everyone else did a very good job but these are the performances that stand out The Ents-Providing some very good comic relief in this movie are the tree shepherds the oldest of whom "Treebeard" is the oldest living thing under the sun in Middle Earth. The ents also look really cool and if you witness nothing else in this movie you should see part where the Ents smack the .... out of Isenguard (the wizard Saurman's stronghold) Gollum-Hats off to the guy that was cast to fill this role, just like I always pictured him Helms Deep-The set is just really good looking you have to see the movie in order to judge for yourself Now the bad O.K first le me say this I am not a Tolken literalist but the book got totally chopped up an diced, not that I mind some of the new parts were good. I just had to endure the moaning and whining of all the literalists at the theater. The Character of John Ryees Davis played a little too heavy on the comic relife aspect of the movie, it got annoying(not that most of it wasn't funny) The ending-As in the last one there was no end. Let me clarify (I'm talking to people who have read the book right now). Guys we know how it ends but what is John Q. Public who is just there for a night of escape supposed to think? I mean it just stops! Jackson could have done a little better with that particular aspect of the movie My overall impression-I loved this movie I really Good Special Effects although it was a little slow at times. An all round good movie
Rating:
Summary: Even Better than the first!
Review: Unlike many of the "reviewers" who wrote "reviews" BEFORE the movie was even released (How can you review something you have never seen?), I have seen the movie. It was honestly one of the best movies that I have seen in the past few years. I am a huge Harry Potter fan, but The Two Towers was much better than either of the Harry Potter movies, which are excellent in their own right. I also liked it more than "Fellowship" which I loved to begin with. There is a lot of action, but there is also charm and humor. The characters seem to have more depth than they did in the first movie. I also like the ending of Two Towers much more, because it kind of "wraps up" a little more instead of just ending abruptly. I would recommend this movie to anyone, whether or not they are Tolkien fans.
Rating:
Summary: Not perfect but close
Review: I'm going to try to keep this review short and simple. First off I'd like to say that "The Fellowship of the Ring" was one of the greatest movies ever made. Now on to the "Two Towers." This must of been a difficult script to write because there is no beginning or an end. Which at times unfortunately makes this movie seem like filler or at least a bridge between the 1st and the 3rd movie. It should be pointed out, the story and emotion of this film plays second to the fight scences. Is that good or bad, well thats up to each individual. There is a fair amount of comic relief from Gimli which I wasn't too fond of. Comic relief should play its part but not through Gimli. His character seems too much of a departure than that of The Fellowship. And one more small gripe. Even though the Battle at Helms Deep was great I thought it just lacked something. The battle was visually stunning like the entire film however the actual swordplay could of been better. As far as the good things go. Well that is just too much to name. But the most enjoyable part of the movie was that of Gollum. The most brilliantly created CG character ever made! Something you just have to see to believe. George Lucas should be taking notes. Despite the very few minor complaints, I love this movie and can't wait for the DVD to come out.
Rating: 
Summary: disappointed
Review: Having read the books a couple of times, i feel i know the story pretty well. Now the first movie strayed a little from the book, and it was ok. The two towers on the other hand........ I have to wonder if peter jackson even had a copy of the second book. This movie did everything but follow the storyline of the book. Don't get me wrong the graphics and action and all that were outstanding, but why even make a movie after a book if you arent going to follow the book, at least a little. I for one am disappointed, and doubt that I'll visit the theatre to see it as many times as the first.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Center of Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Review: I had the pleasure of watching the Two Towers last night with my family and a sold out auditorium. We were not disappointed. I will try to convey a little of the excitement surrounding this film without giving away spoilers - the film's own trailor gives away FAR too much already, in my opinion. The thrill that pulsed through the theater audience as various characters made their screen appearance was palpable. Much has been made of Viggo Mortenson's Aragorn, Andy Serkis' remarkable portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol, Ian McKellen's startling transformation from certain death as Gandalph the Grey to return as Gandalph the White, and the incredible staging of the Battle of Helm's Deep. What I had not expected was the power of the individual characters of John Rhys-Davies as Gimli and Orlando Bloom as Legolas. Gimli is given most of the lighter, more humorous moments - but he also proves at Helm's Deep to be a greater warrior than his Dwarvish size would suggest. When Orlando Bloom's Legolas first strolls across the screen in the opening moments of the film I could hear the sounds of swooning women all around me. And Legolas' character displays some of the film's finer and noblest moments, in particular scenes with Aragorn. At Helm's Deep let's just say you would not want to be an enemy of Legolas - in his fighting scenes he is not only a prolific dispatcher of the enemy, but also marvelously graceful. The special effects fill the screen, but do not dominate the story. This story contained within this film does not stand on it's own - it requires the volumes before and after. But this is true of Tolkien's original work as well - Lord of the Rings is meant to be taken as a whole, broken into three "smaller" pieces for ease of digestion. What "middle" part of a film trilogy can compare? Godfather II? The Empire Strikes Back? This film stands in very high company. Lord, let me live long enough to see "Return of the King". Bravo, Peter Jackson, crew and cast. Bravo.
Rating:
Summary: All I can say is wow....
Review: I should probably be giving this movie five stars but my actual honest opinion is that it's a 4 and 1/2 star movie, and only because it strays from the book a lot more than Fellowship did. While Fellowship may have left out Tom Bobmabadle and other things there wasn't a lot of material added to the movie that wasn't at least implied in the books (IE the relationship between Aragorn and Arwin). However, this movie ads much to the story that wasn't in the book The Two Towers, and while some of it works, like the elves coming to aid against the Oruki, other parts had me a little frustrated. Faramir was not given the chance to be the good man that he was in the books, and came off as being a real jerk right up until the end. I didn't feel the desperation from Faramir that I felt from Boromir in the Fellowship of the Ring, and I didn't feel for him the way I did in the book, but then a lot of things happen in the book that it seems that they are holding for the third movie. I don't recall Faramir taking Frodo, Sam, and Gollum to Gondor in the book either.
Despite these additions, and some occasionally poor CGI effects the movie still managed to hold me in awe throughout the entire 179 minutes. Most of the film is simply breathtaking, even though there are moments where some of the CGI creatures were not very convincing.
On the other hand there's Gollum who put Yoda to shame. Yoda da man? I think not. Gollum! Gollum! To be honest I have a very well trained eye, and CGI effects do not convince me very often, but Gollum fooled my eyes! He looked so real, right down to the pours in his skin, convincing animation, facial expressions... and this boy delivered the most amazing performance of the movie, dealing out a dual personality, and moving the way he did... I'm impressed. Without a doubt Gollum is the best looking CGI character ever... on the other hand I felt that the Ents could have looked more realistic, and on occasion you run into those CGI wolves that the orcs were riding that were not as well done as they could have been either... but then again I know how difficult it is to have hundreds of thousands of photo realistic characters on screen at once.
Over all I loved this movie, but I think that some aspects could have been better. I was upset to see it stray so much from the book, and yet it was still an epic of massive proportions. Still true, in spirit at least to the tone of the novel, if only in spirit. While Fellowship is the better of the two films so far I view the Two Towers as a bridge between to huge points, as with any trilogy the middle chapter is the thinnest, as far as plot and character development, and while this still has plenty of plot and character it is still thinner than the Fellowship, and I'm expecting the Return of the King to be the biggest of all, especially since so much that happened at the end of the Two Towers novel did NOT happen in the movie... but with the cliffhanger ending the movie had, one has to believe that Peter Jackson is just saving some of those big moments for the last movie.
| 
