Rating: 
Summary: THIS IS A FANTASTIC MOVIE!...
Review: DO NOT LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE THE LORD OF THE RINGS : THE TWO TOWERS A BAD REVIEW! THIS IS A FANTASTIC MOVIE YOU MUST GO AND SEE. THE ACTION IS VERY INTHUSIASTIC , THE SPECIAL AFFECTS WERE MIND BLOWING , AND THE MOVIE DID GO VERY WELL WITH TOLKIENS BOOK. THEY JUST ADDED AND CHANGED SOME PARTS TO MAKE THE MOVIE BETTER THAN THE BOOK. AND SOME BIG PARTS THEY CUT OUT AT THE END OF THE TWO TOWERS WILL BE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE RETURN OF THE KING. THIS IS A PERFECT FIVE STAR MOVIE YOU CANNOT MISS!
Rating: 
Summary: All in all, a good film
Review: I have seen the movie twice and, at least during the first hour of the movie, I thought that it couldn't be closer to J.R.R Tolkien's words. Frodo and Sam capturing Gollu; Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli chasing the uruk-hai; Gandalf and the Balrog (the last fight between these two characters seemed kind of how-did-they-got-there-and-why-did-he-die-after-the-Balrog, but it wasn't that important to me); Rohan; Saruman; Treebeard; and then began the problems. I find the fact that the elves had anything to do in the battle of Helm's Deep insulting; of course, it filled the battle with action, but they were not supposed to be there. They took away the victory from men. I mean, "the alliance between men and elves is over," didn't Gandalf say that "it is in men where we must place our hope" in the Fellowship. If Jackson wanted to show the death of thousands of elves, he could have shown all the times Lothlórien was assailed. If they took the Arwen-Aragorn story out of the appendixes, why didn't they show Celeborn fighting orcs? Lothlórien was assailed like three or four times before the end of the story. Why was Eomer vanished? I don't know. Eomer was supposed to be there from the beginning of the battle at Helm's Deep. If Jackson didn't want to show the trees that help them win the battle, then he should have sent ents (at least that would be closer). The scenes when Pippin and Merry are carried by Treebeard got a little boring. Merry and Pippin spend almost the whole movie on Treebeard's shoulders and seem to be getting nowhere. Worst is the fact that all the Ents refused for so long to go into battle with Saruman and ended up destroying the undestructible Isengard five minutes before the movie was over. They also made Gollum more the victim of Frodo's actions than of the ring. In the book Gollum wanted to take Frodo and Sam to "Her" so he wouldn't have to go against his promise, but in the movie it was because Frodo led him to the hands of the Gondorians who battered the old creature. The closing song was even about that. I recognize that if I hadn't read the book, I would have thought Gollum to have a touching and interesting story, but that was just cheap. I won't even talk about Faramir or of the meeting between Frodo and the Ring-Wraith mounted on his fell beast or Aragorn's adventures or Gimli's new job as the buffoon of the story or Theoden's presumptuous character, he's supposed to be very different from Denethor, and in the movie he is a bit worst. I disliked the Théoden from the movie more than I disliked the Denethor from the book. Of course, I cannot deny that the movie has its good side. There would be no flaw in it for anyone who hasn't read the book or who considers that a script has to be different from a book. It is better than "The Fellowship" and a lot of work went into making the story, but I cannot help to think that if what Peter Jackson wanted was to make a story of brave warriors and love strories, he could have made a re-make of "King Kong". But well, nobody's perfect and there are many good parts to the movie that outweight the changes. So, if you are not a die-hard fan of the book and will not break your TV when you see that the movie is a Peter Jackson story based on the story by J.R.R Tolkien and not a J.R.R Tolkien movie, I recommend it. All in all, with all its changes, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" is a good film.
Rating:
Summary: I left the theater very satisfyed.
Review: It only isn't better than the first, but it is by far the best movie I have ever seen. Here's why: 1.Gollum. He was so realistic I sometimes forgot that he was just a CG-rendered image. The audience could both feel for him and take him seriously as an actual character. 2.Treebeard. Another good looking CGI character. Just what I imagined when I was reading the book. 3.The warg attack. Although it wasn't in the book, it provided some nice action when the movie was lagging. 4.The Battle of Helm's Deep. Peter Jackson devoted the last half hour of the movie to the greatest battle sequence ever seen (at least until film #3). Great visual effects used here, as well.
Absolutely astonishing. So what if there are changes? I thought many were right on. Stop picking the movie apart to find flaws and enjoy it. Book and film are at opposite ends of the media spectrum. In all, this is a must-see.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible!
Review: Wow. After all the reviewers who have gone before me and said all the things I wish I could have thought of to say, I guess I'm left with just voicing my opinion. I'm not a huge Tolkien fan. I don't use the elvin language when instructing telemarketers to go to a dark place. In fact, I have not (gasp!) even read the entire set of books in the Lord of the Rings. So perhaps I can use my voice to speak for the masses of other people like me who aren't obsessed with this great man. The Two Towers is great! The actors are superb, the setting breath taking, the directing incredible, the computer simulations seamless, the horses unbelieveable ... I could go on and on. This film leaves you drained and stumbling out into the bright world beyond the theater wondering whether you will be able to drive home without encountering any Orks, and (in my case) wishing you had Aragorn by your side to help you make it. Golum was especially well done, fascinating. The interaction between the various groups of wanderers was full of the warmth of friendship. Touching. However ... having seen both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, I felt the Fellowship was just the least bit better. There was more storyline, I felt, and more suspense. That said, both of these films were incredible and, having now gone and read the first two books in the series, I felt the movies stayed close enough to the orignal. Movies are different than books. You can't simply take a book and turn it word for word into a movie. I felt the adaptions were well done and did not alter the meaning of the story. All this from a mere layperson in the Tolkien world! A layperson who recommends you rush out and see this movie, because it will never be the same at home on your small TV screen with your greasy microwave popcorn tucked between your knees and your baby howling.... Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie Ever!!!
Review: This movie is better than "The Fellowship Of The Ring". And "The Fellowship Of The Ring" was a fantastic movie. Director Peter Jackson has made "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy saga more incredible because "The Two Towers" has now been released in theaters. "The Two Towers" is a phenominal movie that even critics are hailing as best movie of 2002. There is a lot of action , adventure , and fantasy in this great movie. The orcs and Nazgul looked very real. Even Gollum looked real. The actors and actresses in this movie did a wonderful job on acting like the characters from the books. "The Lord Of The Rings : The Two Towers" is a fantastic movie. Now I can't wait to see "The Return Of The King" next year in theaters. It is going to be awsome.
Rating: 
Summary: I wanted to like it
Review: But we don't always get what we want. I'm not sure who Jackson is trying to please in his adaptations of Lord of the Rings: it has too many characters and plot twists for people who have not read the book to follow, and he strays too far and without purpose to satisfy those who have read and loved the books. Apparantly, Jackson is against integrity in his characters, and hopes to gloss over his morally and mentally deficient stars with a lot of pretty schenery and impressive action. Yes, Gollum was good. However, he was the only character I felt was satisfactory. I will now make the complaint many have made before: oh, what happened to Faramir? What of Treebeard? Of Theoden? Where have all the noble men gone? Theoden running FROM the fighting? No, he goes to Helm's Deep to MEET the attack. Why the hell wouldn't Treebeard (also called Fangorn) know what was going on in his own forest (after all, the forest - Fangorn - is named after him - he's the shepherd of the trees)? Why did Faramir decide to send Sam and Frodo to Denethor? Especially on that count, WHY? I have the biggest problem with the changes in Treebeard and Faramir, since they are two of my favorite characters. In the film, they both make wrong decisions based on a lot of deliberation (the entmoot takes 2.5 days, and we are purposely shown footage of Faramir deliberating over what to do with the hobbits) and then change their minds in a second - that doesn't even make good sense. (And, by the way, how the hell would Sam know that Boromir's desire for the ring lead to his death? He didn't even KNOW Boromir was dead - Faramir had to tell him that - shouldn't Faramir have caught on????) And then, sigh, there is the Aragorn/Arwen/Elrond subplot. I know, I do fully realize that there is a good (heartbreaking, really) love story there that deserves screen time - however, throwing Aragorn off a cliff just so Arwen can send him a horse to nibble his face while she strokes a pillow is not exactly how I would have chosen to fit it in, personally. And Aragorn and Arwen never for one second think about being unfaithful to each other - Aragorn never tells her to go to the Grey Havens, and she never even entertains the idea. The whole reason Aragorn wants to be King is so he can marry her, with whom he has been in love for the last sixty years. Since when is faithfulness and honor less exciting than action and the suspense that comes from wishy-washy people being unsure of how to be true to their hearts, and the hearts of others. So, yes, I am a Tolkien fan. I am a bit of a purist, in the sense that, if you're going to change the deepest elements of a fantastic book - you better have a good reason, and there better be something to compensate. I don't really find computer graphics to be compensation for shallowness, faithlessness, and general idiocy of character, no matter how good those graphics may be. Those are just the biggest complaints I have - don't even get me going on how Gandalf and Frodo have been reduced to basically meaningless characters, or the ridiculous depiction of elves. (In FotR, for example, Celeborn: "Wheeere is Gahhndahhlf? Foor I much desiaahh to speeeek with himmm." That's not regal/magestic to me - that's just stupid) If Jackson never wants to touch on the deeper and more spiritual/fantasy elements of the books, I can understand that. The history of Middle Earth is not something that can easily be captured on screen. But to take an incredibly well-loved trilogy, wonderfully crafted and filled with WORTHWHILE characters and turn it into your own action adventure picture with a dwarf for comic relief, all the while claiming to love Tolkien -- I don't feel the truth in that. But I do hear the money rolling in.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Review: I love this movie. It's much better than the Fellowship of the Ring. There's more action and more drama. One thing I didn't like about this movie is that it didn't follow the book The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers very well. In the book, Frodo, Sam and Gollum never go to Osgilath and Faramir never even thinks about taking the Ring. He actually says something like, "Don't worry Frodo, I'm not going to try to take the Ring from you like my brother." But for a movie, it was excellent! I can't wait until the Return of the King! ("Return of the King" is my favourite book. I wonder how it will appear on screen!)
Rating:
Summary: This Movie Was A Phenomenon!
Review: The Lord Of The Rings : The Two Towers is the best movie of 2002. It deserves to win 1,000 oscars. The special affects were breath taking , the music score was fantastic , and the battle scenes were very intense. The actors in this great phenominal movie did very splendid on acting like the characters from the book. Some people are complaining about how this movie never went by the great author J.R.R. Tolkiens second book of The Lord Of The Rings very well. But guess what? I have read Tolkiens Lord Of The Rings trilogy books three times. This movie hardly skipped any parts from the second Lord Of The Rings book at all. The only thing they did was add some parts and change some parts making the movie more intense and better than the book. Sure it did not have the parts from the second book of The Lord Of The Rings where Gandalf breaks Sarumans staff and has a palantir thrown at him or where Frodo and Sam confront Shelob the giant evil spider. Well guess what? Those parts will be at the beginning of The Return Of The King the last part of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy directed by the wonderful director Peter Jackson. The orcs , trolls , ringwraiths , oliphaunts , ents , and the pitiful Gollum creature looked very realistic. The Lord Of The Rings : The Two Towers is better than The Fellowship Of The Ring , and I think The Fellowship Of The Ring is a wonderful movie. Thank you Peter Jackson and crew for making Middle-earth once again come to life. Special thanks to the wonderful actors who acted in this fantastic movie. They did a splendid job.
Rating:
Summary: The best movie ever
Review: I loved this movie. I have seen it six times so far. I can't wait for it to come to DVD. I am also looking forward to the next movie, Return of the King. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone. If you liked the first movie. You will love the latest installment of the Lord of the Rings. There is more action and special effects. If you haven't seen it yet, go see it.
Rating:
Summary: I am finally a convert
Review: "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" turns out to be a mighty impressive second installment in the J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy - quite an admission from someone who wasn't exactly the greatest fan of the first installment, "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring." That film, for all its visual splendor, narrative ambition and epic scope, ultimately, turned into little more than a conventional monster movie, with the characters battling one strange creature after another to the point where the film finally became a crashing bore long before its three-hour running time was up. "The Two Towers," though equally long (one minute shy of three hours, to be exact), doesn't fall into this monotonous narrative pattern, thereby allowing for more variety in its story and more depth in its characterizations. As someone who knows next to nothing about the specifics of the trilogy, I must say that the story can be a bit hard to follow for the non-initiate. We aren't always sure who is who or just how the battle lines in the various good-vs.-evil conflicts fall out. This has the unfortunate effect of making the early stretches of the film confusing and, at times, downright incomprehensible. Luckily, the plot strands begin to straighten themselves out after not too long a time, and one can at least follow the unfolding action well enough to become absorbed in the spectacle on screen. And impressive that spectacle is, with director Peter Jackson once again creating an entire fantasy world with the help of his cinematographer, Andrew Lesnie, as well as his various art directors, scenic designers and special effects wizards. One of the reasons "The Two Towers" triumphs over "Fellowship of the Ring" is that this newest film provides us with more conflicted, more complex characters. This is especially true in the case of Frodo Baggins, the hobbit who's been entrusted with the powerful ring, but who must now struggle to avoid becoming taken over by its evil power. Similarly, Gollum, a loathsome but strangely compelling creature who befriends Frodo in an attempt to wrest the ring from him, suffers with bouts of schizophrenic near-madness as part of him wants simply to do the right thing, and, thereby, garner acceptance and companionship in the process. These two characters bring some added depth to all the surface magnificence of eye-filling vistas and heart-pounding adventure and battle scenes. Not being familiar with Tolkien's novels, I cannot say to what extent the film is or is not faithful to the original. I will, therefore, simply state that "The Two Towers" is a powerful and moving saga that can stand on its own as a first-rate movie-going experience. Having nodded through the first installment of the series, I was not exactly looking forward to Part Two. Now, having seen Part Two, I can't wait to see Part Three.
| 
