Rating: 
Summary: Better than Fellowship
Review: I know that I'm committing some sort of sacrilege, but I was one of the few people on the planet Earth who thought that Peter Jackson's first film, The Fellowship of the Ring, was good but not great. The pacing felt rushed, Pippin and Merry (close friends--almost family actually--of Frodo) were reduced to the hobbit equivalent of Beavis and Butthead. Arwen, super-elf, made a brave stand at the ford instead of Frodo (I'm all for improving Arwen's character, but I still don't understand why Frodo's confrontation against the black riders was robbed from him; after all, Frodo shows something about himself in this scene). All in all, the Tolkien purist in me thought, "Ugh!"That said, I'm surprised that some purist reviewers are taking shots at The Two Towers. For my money, the Two Towers felt more in line with Tolkien's vision than the first film. The first 90 minutes are superb. Rohan and its inhabitants feel "dead on," and there are certain moments--such as when Gandalf saves Theoden--that feel just right. Gollum is surprisingly well-rendered. He's the first CGI character that I felt something for. Even Treebeard looks sharp! Some will take issue with Jackson's changes, and I can understand this, but his changes didn't feel as arbitrary or damning as those made in the first film (Arwen rescuing Frodo, Aragorn "letting" Frodo escape, etc.). There's really only one serious change made in the Two Towers: Faramir. In the book, Faramir is the mirror opposite of his brother Boromir. Whereas Boromir lusted after the ring to his death, Faramir shows maturity and vision by divining that Frodo and Sam are on a serious mission and letting them go. Jackson has taken some liberties here, making Faramir something of a villain. Fans have been outraged. To me, I didn't care much for the change, but unlike Arwen's rescuing of Frodo in Fellowship (which I still don't understand), Faramir's change felt a bit more reasonable. After all, film is a different medium than the printed page, and it would be difficult to capture the subtlety of Faramir and Frodo's dialogue as Faramir slowly figures things out. Instead, Jackson has to signal things to the average viewer, and I can understand this. In essence, Jackson exaggerates Faramir's revelation by casting him as the villain who slowly learns what his brother Boromir could not. Yes, I too wondered why the hell the hobbits were being dragged to Gondor. Yes, I too wondered to myself, "What the hell is Jackson doing?" Overall, though, I'd say it's a palatable change. It's palatable because so much of the film works well. Whereas Fellowship felt rushed to me (the film could have been titled "The Fellowship of the Ring's Greatest Hits"), The Two Towers revels in its "middle book" stance. Are there negatives? Well, sure. Treebeard's scenes with Merry and Pippin feel shortchanged, which is too bad because I was really nervous about Treebeard coming across as cheezy, but I now think he deserved *more* screen time. There's a 15-minute lull where Arwen and Elrond are shown in flashbacks, and although I respect Jackson's decision to flesh out the Aragorn-Arwen love story (which Tolkien surprisingly ignored, even though--as Tolkien geeks know--Arwen is the only elf (save Luthien) to sacrifice immortality for love), these scenes really drag down the film. I'd love to say to Jackson, "Hey, man, I see what you're trying to do, and it's noble, but it just ain't working." Lastly, Aragorn's falling over a cliff during and orc/warg battle feels forced. Not only does it ring as Hollywood action cliche, but we've already seen Gandalf reappear from the depths of death. We don't want to see this same trope echoed via Aragorn. Still, the positives outweight the negatives. The Two Towers is a stronger picture than the first film and is actually more honest to the books--at least in terms of feel and rythym an pace. Here's hoping that the Return of the King can continue the trend.
Rating:
Summary: A longtime reader who loved it
Review: Ignore the fringe purists who claim to speak for all longtime fans. At 36, I've read The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion well into the double digits of times. It has been my favorite book since I was 11 years old. I absolutely adored Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Two Towers in spite of -- and often because of -- his changes. The changes were, after all, all the only surprises I got. I love the Warg Attack, which gave Aragorn a vulnerability and poignance that his character lacks in the books. Faramir's purity always struck me as inconsistent with the power of the ring on humans, it's great to see him a bit conflicted. The Elves arrival at Helms Deep is a perfect chance to show they didn't abandon mankind. It doesn't make sense to take the time to explain that Galadriel and company took down Sauron's old fortress Dol Guldur in Mirkwood. Of course, only readers will understand most of what I just said. Just be sure to see Fellowship of the Ring before you see this wonderful movie, as there is no attempt to bring you up to date.
Rating:
Summary: If you want the book buy it
Review: I had to write this review based on an absolutely scathing review that took potshots at the director. First if you are going to see the movie to see how true it stayed to the story line you will be disappointed. But if you are going to see the movie to see how it was adapted and because you enjoy epic adventures and well made movies then by all means go. I read the book before seeing the movie to contrast and compare, and while yes I was disappointed at the artistic license, the movie more than made up for it in terms of sheer power. The CGI interpretation of Gollum alone was enought to bring me back two times for it and counting. I eagerly look forward to the next movie, of which I am about a 1/3 of the way thru the book. Rarely does a movie completely embrace its literary origins. ...just be glad to see the movie for the movies sake and not for the book.
Rating:
Summary: Masterpiece of a movie
Review: Despite the fact that this movie's plot often strayed quite far from Tolkien's book, it is still a masterpiece. The sets are absolute eye-candy, the screenplay in moving, and the action is heart-pumping. It is also not overly-dramatic as the first Lord of the Rings movie. I'd recommend it to any film fan, and to any extremely open-minded Tolkien fan; it's thoroughly enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Hold On Again
Review: Once again we are thrown back into the vivid world of Middle Earth. Between the beautiful scenery and the fantastic battle sequences this is just as good as the first one. If the third movie is anywhere near this good the video Trilogy will certainly be considered a classic. All Tolkien fans will have to own these marvelous movies that do justice to the fantastic world of its creator. Is it perfect? No. But given the time restraints it is a fine piece of work. Do yourself a favor. Don't miss this one!
Rating:
Summary: Epics rule!
Review: I've always heard about Lord of the Rings even before i actually tried to read the books. When i read articles and stories about it i thought: Man, this Tolkien guy was a genious! A creating God in his own media. How could he created such a astonishingly complex universe with it's own history, peoples, languages and cities? After watching Fellowship and the Two towers four times each i realized that i am in love with epic movies, particulally those whose story is passed in an past or fantastic time. Braveheart, Kagemusha, Ran, Conam or even Star Wars, are movies that give us a feel of watching something greater than us, something trully magnificent. They're like the songs the bards sang in the royal courts of Europe in the Middle Ages.
As for Lord of the Rings, The Two towers abandons the pastoral tone of Fellowship and jumps head-on in the epic dimension. Now the War of the Ring has finally begun as the titanic clash between men and uruk-hai in Helm's Deep and the attack by the ents on Isengard make clear. Now the moments of thruth have finally come and the Midlle-Earth will be shaken to its very foundations. When Two Towers ends we, poor mortals that never read the books can only wonder what will happen in Return of the King, knowing only that will be even bigger than what is shown in The two towers. Since people who will be reading this review will very probably know the movie's story by hard i prefer to focus on two very diferent yet very similar characters: King Théoden and Sméagol/Gollum. Théoden is a man, king of Rohan and a brave and noble warrior, and Gollum is a repulsive scavenging creature that has been twisted and deformed by the Ring of Power for centuries. But what links these two characters you ask? Their humanity. Gollum was once a hobbit like Frodo or Sam but has been transformed by the ring into a near-animal. Finding Frodo and Sam and joining them as a guide in their journey to Mordor awakens something in him that laid dorment and forgotten for too long. The faith Frodo has that he can be different, that he can redeem himself is what makes Sméagol loyal to the goals of the Quest. His struggle with himself, with Gollum, that is nothing but the savagery and survival instict wich dominated him for so long, makes Sméagol both a tragic and touching character. King Théoden on the other hand is a man on an existencial crisis. After being spelled by Saruman and manipulated by Gríma Théoden awokes from his apathy and lethargy to find his beloved land being devastated. The death of his only son and heir and the grief that follows it contributes for his sense of displacement and confusion. He tries to do his best but still don't know who is or what he must do. And then, when all seems lost and hopeless he finally discovers that he must fight to protect his people from the horrors of genocide, and side by side with Aragorn, Legolas and his lieutenants he rides out to battle once more to meets its destiny. So here's my review and please watch the movie first and then read it. I hope you will think as i do
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Story But Not Faithful To The Book
Review: This sequel to "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is a wonderfully told story with many strengths in it, but it is not very faithful to the book upon which it was based. Other reviewers have pointed out -- sometimes zealously and vehemently -- the many deviations from the book, and I will not relist them all. I will point out the four that seemed key to me. First, the character and subplot of Faramir was substantially altered; while the book did have him capture Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol/Gollem, he did not take them to Osgiliath in Gondor, as the film portrayed. Faramir never distrusted Frodo, nor did he openly speak of the One Ring (although he hinted that he had guessed about Frodo's mission). Faramir bordered on being a bad guy in the film, while he was clearly the younger-but-wiser-and-nobler younger brother of Boromir in the book. Second, two major aspects of the Ent subplot were altered. First, the Ents knew about and grieved and were outraged by Saruman's destruction of part of the forest -- they were not surprised by it after Meriadoc and Pippin lead them there. Second, they did not just break a dam to flood Isengard, they diverted the river. Third, Eomer's subplot was dramatically changed. The book had him imprisoned; the film had him and a large contingent of men being exiled. The Faramir alteration makes no sense to me. The surprising of the Ents by the destruction of the forest makes no sense to me, and is incompatible with their role as treeherds and stewards of the forest. The change in how Isengard was flooded might make sense, as diverting a river would have been a major special effect, while breaking a damn is a smaller one. The Eomer change was probably done for dramatic purposes; it allowed him and his contingent to ride in to save the day. I was not comfortable with the portrayal of Gimli. This is not the actor's fault, but the scriptwriter's. He became the comic relief, when the book had him as only occasionally comical. Meanwhile, the comic relief of the first film -- the exaggerated immaturity and clowning of Meriadoc and Pippin -- disappeared in favor of making them more heroic, which did fit the book in concept. Now that I'm done griping, I will say that "The Two Towers" is a well-told tale with good acting, indescribably beautiful scenery, a great musical score, and plenty of drama. It is also a very violent movie, which is true to the book, and is not appropriate for younger children. I saw quite a few children, ages six to ten, in the theater, and I will bet that some of them will have nightmares, some of them will get hurt or hurt others by re-enacting the movie in play, and some will do both. Helm's Deep, the Ents, and Smeagol/Gollem all represent incredible special effects. Overall, this is a very good film about fantasy and war, although it is only loosely faithful to the book upon which it is supposedly based.
Rating:
Summary: huh? where in tarnation did that come from?
Review: peter jackson is possibly: a) the best thing about this movie
b) the worse thing about this movie unfortunately, he is both... see, i loved this movie - loved it too much to be even certified sane by many psychiatrists. there are too many darned good things that i can say that this movie has; but in the end, i am terribly, terribly disappointed in what i see as a blatant deviation in the plot. just one says it all: faramir i may love this movie to death, but i am also a purist. kinda. i can understand and sympathize with the need to streamline the plot to make it even remotely possible to film the movie, but i cannot understand nor support the move director peter jackson took in totally changing the circumstances and character of faramir! people should know that he is one of the best characters ever to appear in the book... here is one man who is wise, noble and never seemed to get his father's approval who still loves his brother (but sees and realizes the shortcomings of his sibling) even though when he knows that his elder sibling is and has always been his father's favorite son. he is supposed to be the complete opposite to boromir - that's one of the ironies and lessons that tolkien wanted to bring into light. i really feel that what peter jackson did to faramir's character is unforgivable. it's like making gandalf's character similar to saruman, because that's really one of the closest comparison there is. tolkien was making a lot of point in the develeopment of his charaters - saruman & gandalf, faramir & boromir - so much so that by deviating from it kinda makes the whole point moot. well, enough about that... about the movie, yes, i was so happy to see further development in aragorn's character. he is indeed better than he was before. in fact, in LotR: FotR i was less than enamored of aragorn. mortensen is more than a good actor, he is in fact, excellent; but in FotR i somehow felt that his talents were under utilized and that his character was less developed. but not so in this one; there seemed to be vast improvements in aragorn's characterization. there are a lot of fighting scenes in this movie, all which surpassed any of my expectations. actually, it was utterly magnificent... *sigh* and really girls, this is actually a damn good movie for a girl's night out... heh heh heh all in all, this is well worth spending your $$$ on; just don't expect it to stay totally true to the mechanics and vision of the book. other than that, this is one of the best thing that ever hit the big screen...
Rating:
Summary: Hobbits up a Tree
Review: Excellent sequel much better than the first film in my opinion. It's a pity we have to wait another year for the final part. The SFX in the movie are in a different dimension, far better than the last Star Wars. The only fault with the movie (as in the book) is that too many characters are wandering around in search of a plot, seemingly waiting for part three i.e the duo up the tree for most of the movie. Great stuff
Rating: 
Summary: NOTHING like the book!
Review: I know a zillion people have written a review on this movie, as well as the first. Well, here's another. From a strictly action movie standpoint, I thought the movie was good. The special effects are amazing. Especially Gollem. He was almost completely computer generated. For a Lord of the Rings fan, however, the movie is gross. They get the character's names right and their "race" correct, but that's about it. Arwen going to the Grey Havens ?????, Frodo and Sam going to Gondor???, and where the heck did the elves come from at Delm's Keep???? Aragon falling off a CLIFF???. Unbelievable. If you are die-hard fan of the book series, you will be gritting your teeth through the entire movie. For someone who never read the books and just wants to see a great action movie with a lot of dirty, scraggly-haired people, go for it!
|
