Rating: 
Summary: good, but with significant discrepancies
Review: The Two Towers is a good film with excellent scenery, actors, music, and special effects. However, I was disapointed with the interesting choices Peter Jackson made regarding what parts of the book to include. The director apparently decided to cut out chunks of the book to make room for completely made-up scenes. In one instance, a character's attitude and actions were completely reversed (!!!). And for the parts that were originally from the book, many were altered.
So if you plan on seeing this and have never read the books and don't plan on ever reading them, it's a great movie. But if you love Tolkien's work, the two towers is still good, just be prepared for the numerous changes.
Rating: 
Summary: Absolutly Wonderful! I have seen it 3 times!
Review: This movie is awsome! I have seen it 3 times and I would like to see it a fourth! This movie passes the first installment by far! It is 3 hours and 15 minutes long but it is worth the time. It is very different from the book and there is less Merry and Pippin and also less of Frodo and Sam than in the Fellowship of the Ring. Some parts were a little two long for me (like Sam talking forever to Frodo about not giving up or something!) but all the other great parts made up for it! The best part was that Orlando Bloom (Legolas) actually had some LINES in this movie!!!!! I totally love Orlando! If you see the movie, there is also a trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean, a new movie starring Johnny Depp, Geoffery Rush, and ORLANDO BLOOM! But anyway, I suggest this movie to anyone who luvs LOTR. Peter Jackson is truly a genious! The movie may be hard to follow to thoughs who have not read the book series, as with the first one. In this movie, it is slightly confusing because it is night one minute and the previous day or following day the next minute. It goes forward and back in time a lot to track the tree 'parties' the fellowship has divided into. Despite the confusion, the script, and camara work, and especially the special effects excelled beyond my expectations! The battle of Helms Deep was spectacular! There were also a few witty lines in the movie and the score was the best I have heard in a long time! My favorite music was the violin music they play in Edoras. The actors have talent beyond belief! You can hardly tell that they aren't aragorn or gimli or frodo or something! How come you can understand Viggo Mortenson in the movie but I need subtitles to understand his interviews? Strange...
Rating: 
Summary: an Achillies heal (the flawed hero) ...
Review: The Two Towers is a fitting follow up to the very successful first instalment. Again there are strong performances by almost all the cast, the cinematography, attention to detail and pace are excellent, and the creative adaptation of certain elements from the books are by in large successful. However, having now seen the extended version of the "Fellowship", I have to wonder what was left on the cutting room floor, and what might be included in a subsequent DVD release. I'm not wanting to sound too rabid a fan, but I was disappointed with a few elements in the film. While the "Fellowship" perfectly captured the relationship between Sam and Frodo, the Two Towers seemed to lack the development of the relationship between Legolas and Gimli. This is primarily due to the direction of Gimli's character, which tended towards bombast and general comic relief. This direction, while making internal sense within the movie, misses the crux of Gimli's character in the book, and doesn't leave enough with the audience to explain the depth and intensity of the friendship between these two characters. The extended "Fellowship" DVD made some critical development of the Gimli character, though given the structure of the cinematic release of the "Two Towers" I am not sure how easy it may be to do the same. In addition, I am again not too sure of Hugo Weaving's portrayal of Elrond. I'm not entirely certain whether it is his presence or direction, but I can't escape the feeling that Rupert Everett might have been a better choice for the role. I am looking forward to an extended version coming out in a year - the pieces added to the Fellowship DVD filled many of the minor imperfections of the theatrical release, and hopefully the same will be said with the Two Towers. That being said, all other aspects of the film were excellent. Viggo Mortensen captures his role perfectly, the opening sequence is brilliant, and Gollum is the first CGI character I have not found to be both instantly obnoxious and a waste of space. Like its predecessor, this is not a movie for those with an MTV attention span or a pride in their own functional illiteracy. For the rest of us, Two Towers is definitely worth seeing - it is engaging, visually spectacular and well acted: what more could you wish for in a movie?
Rating: 
Summary: Vivid History Miraculously Boiled into Melodramatic Pap!
Review: Tolkien, in private letters and public interviews, acknowledged that he did not "write "the Ring Trilogy as much as he "discovered" it: by exploring Middle Earth and it's languages and peoples, Tolkien also uncovered vast interweaving mythologies, the stories in the Ring Trilogy being only a small part of the whole. Tolkien took these mythologies very seriously, treating them as factual accounts, and taking great pains to make sure chronology, character and place stood up against scrutiny. He created a world filled with danger, political and personal intrigue, and most important of all, beauty. It is necesary to understand Tolkien's intentions and mode in order to understand why this movie, The Two Towers, fails so utterly. The movie is devoid of beauty: where Tolkien had characters with noble bearing and places that spoke of time and splendor, Peter Jackson (the Director of the LOTR movies) chooses instead to divide all characters and places into featureless black and white. What was noble in the book is now evil until proven good. [I can't say that works the other way, the movie tends to be a bit predictable along those lines.] What was grand in the book is now mud-caked and groveling, what was subtle and witty is now trite and overblown. It is hard to figure out why the filmmaker's did what they did: eliminate most of the hard-edged and truly brilliant lines, shuffle about (or ignore) character motivations, add scenes that are intended to clarify but only succeed in bogging down flow and pace. This is not a filmmaker's movie. Peter Jackson is not a capable director in a historic mode. His Heavenly Creatures is brilliant, The Frighteners is good work. Why? Because Mr. Jackson is a capably director, in a COMIC mode. The end result of his directing is a cartoon with real actors. This is the last thing that Tolkien's work asks for, and is a sad misread and miscasting of the original material. I understand the difficulty of the task that faced Peter Jackson: taking three lengthy, involved and well-known books and translating them into a marketable, brandable entity that attracts viewers across all the demographics: age, sex, race, etc. Perhaps this film does that. Great, but that is not why I go to the movies. If one good thing were to come out of this mess it would be this: that perhaps more fantasy/sci-fi movies will be made, drawn from solid, classical material, with good funding and distribution. If you see the movie, I applaud you. The filmmaker's spent millions of hours in time and hundreds of millions of dollars, go ahead and treat yourself for 7 bucks. But, I implore you to read the original books: the movie that I saw today is NOT Tolkien's The Two Towers, and is but a pale, overdrawn comic strip in comparison. Do Tolkien and yourself a favor and read the books!
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: As a "Lord of the rings" novel fan, Fellowship became one of my favourite movies ever because of its similarity with the book (I understand the few things changed to bring the novel to theatres).
But this one, aughh, is too different from the novel, and the worst of the cases, in detriment of the history and the characters:
- Frodo NEVER goes to Osgiliath, or faces the Nazgûl
- Faramir is wise and gives his best wishes to Frodo's mission, he is not a bad guy, he doesn't take Frodo as prisoner, or treat him bad at all.
- Frodo NEVER attacked Sam with a knife.
- Sam never runs to Morannon (the gate) or gets caught in quicksand or whatever, or somebody spot them.
- Éomer has been held in prison for disagreements with Grima, he is not an exiled, and who comes to Helm's deep at the end of the battle is Erkenbrand, and also, some kind of Ents are the ones make and ambush to the orcs when they are in full retreat.
- Aragorn (and friends) never fight against the wolves or fall to a river or has been rescued by a horse or returns when every one thinks he is death. He is always at the side of Théoden
- Théoden is not under Saruman's spell, but under Grima's gossip
- The ents already know that the forest has been destroyed and decided BY THEMSELVES to attack Isengard. It is not because some hobbit tells them to do it.
...and so on, I can be writing for hours and hours...What can I expect for the "Return of the King", Gollum king of Gondor? Frodo taking Sauron's place instead of throwing the ring into Mount Doom? Arwen marrying Gandalf? Or what???
Rating:
Summary: The adventure-filled Two Towers is enchanting and majestic
Review: The 2001 film The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was deservedly well received by both critics and audiences, and Peter Jackson's sequel The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is worthy of equally enthusiastic applause. The epic sequel is visually stunning, filled with hugely impressive special effects, and filmed on beautiful New Zealand locations. The Two Towers is darker and grittier than The Fellowship of the Ring (and the movie compensates with humor), and is told in the tradition of other classic fantasy tales. The film's opening scene is a reprise of the battle between Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and the Balrog, an enormous demon-like monster, which ends with Gandalf defeating the horrific beast and transforming into a more powerful Gandalf the White. The movie then continues with Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) as they journey to Mount Doom, where they plan to destroy the Ring. On their journey, they encounter a goblin-like creature known as Gollum (Andy Serkis). This strange being, formerly a Hobbit named Smeagol, serves Frodo and Sam as a guide and companion. Gollum became obsessed with the ring when it was in his possession long ago, and this obsession altered his appearance from a Hobbit into a detestable looking individual. In the meantime, the evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee) is completing his formation of the large Uruk-Hai army, which is intent on opposing the fortress of Theoden (Bernard Hill). The brave Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen)-along with the bow-wielding elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the ax-carrying dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies)-joins Theoden to help fight against Saruman's army. Furthermore, the Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) are being protected by Treebeard, who is of an ancient race of tree-like creatures known as Ents. While watching both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, it is evident that director Peter Jackson is fervently devoted to the characters of his films. He displays the characters' traits with great passion. The director had his characters act more mature and aggressive in their personalities in comparison to how they acted in The Fellowship of the Ring, and that was a wise decision that complemented the story of the film. Jackson's renditions of some characters were not too close to J.R.R. Tolkien's versions, however, but these are few in number. (For example, Brad Dourif's character Grima Wormtongue acted as a sort of outwardly repugnant apprentice to Saruman in the film, yet in the book Grima Wormtongue was a more restrained and mysterious character). The film is blessed with astonishingly realistic and majestic CGI images. The battle sequences are intensely brutal yet at the same time visually amazing. The computer-animated characters Treebeard and Gollum could have been very cartoon-like, yet the audience cannot help but view them seriously due to their meticulously crafted appearances. The character of Gollum, who has two personalities-his evil Gollum side and his good, Hobbit-like Smeagol side-provides the film with one of its most outstanding accomplishments. The Two Towers, like its predecessor, is nearly flawless in every aspect of movie-making. The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is remarkably good, and the score by veteran film composer Howard Shore provides the audience with music that is moving, grand, and heart-pounding. In addition, the production design by Grant Major is exceptional. The Lord of the Rings series could be called the "Star Wars of today." The Lord of the Rings films are breathtaking, enchanting, poignant, audacious, adventure-filled, and inspiring. The magnificent filmmaking and special effects within these fantasy epics are simply priceless, and Peter Jackson's directing has been, since his acclaimed 1994 film Heavenly Creatures, meritorious in every respect of the word. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is one of the best movies of 2002.
Rating:
Summary: THIS MOVIE IS ....
Review: I thought the first one was pretty good and i was some what excited to see this one but oh man... I wish I didn't go. I basically had no idea what was going on through the whole thing and the movie is like 10 hours long without out one damn thing happening. This is basically what the movie is like.. "We must go to argon and get the splinter t cheese crisp to find the missing amulet of my brother." Scene changes to 2 kids and a really annoying moster thing which lead no where the just walk around and argue and a bunch of other .... happens that has no point and is really boring. They finally have action at the end buts it's way too late to save the movie. DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE!
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Review: I definitely believe that LOTR:TTT was exceptional. The intro about what happened to Gandalf after the fall was a great way to start off the movie. It reminded us about past events but didn't delve too much into that. After reading the book, the first thing I wondered was how they were going to divide the movie up. The book was divided into two separate parts, with three different groups. Peter Jackson did a very good job with the transitions. For example, when Aragorn was tracing the Hobbits' steps into the forest, the scene suddenly switches to the part when Merry and Pippin are running in the forest. One part I did not really understand in the book was the meaning of the two towers (what they were). In the movie I finally understood that it was Isengard and Mordor. I think the movie made that part clear. Many people have said how many parts of the book were excluded and changed, but you have to keep in mind that it is already 3 hours long. If they added more, the audience would be sitting there for an entire day. Overall, the movie was wonderful, and I would pay to see it again.
Rating:
Summary: So Awesome!...
Review: I loved Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers! It rocked! It had great places, more danger, and more action! You also got to get to know the characters a lot better to. I really enjoyed it a lot, it was spectacular! So if you liked the first one, I recommend the second one, because you will absoultly love it!
Rating:
Summary: I like it, but why is it ...
Review: putting me to sleep? Okay. The first one did, too. I really enjoyed the parts when I wasn't dozing off. Gollum is absolutely engaging and wonderfully realized. He was my favorite character in the movie--indeed, in both episodes combined. It was a mistake for Gimli to be the comic relief. Rhys-Davies just isn't up to it. In that regard, we have what I think is the only serious flaw in Part II--the lack of a sufficiently "light" character to add depth and pleasure to the film. Then again--yawn--why did I find myself nodding off at various points? Could it be that this movie is too long? Heaven forbid! Could it be that the battle scene was stretched out to the point of being, well, exhausting and a bit over-cooked? Not possible! Might it be that the "American Express" commercial look and feel (reminiscent of moments from the hideous "Gladiator") to the flashbacks triggered a nascent narcolepsy? How could that be?! Let's call this film for what it is. A fine movie, but certainly not an example of any sort of economy--of time, of plot, of action, or of scenery. But, given the need to convert Tolkein's legendary books to the screen, the central flaw in them has joined us for the ride. The Lord of the Rings books, for all their wonder, are, well, a bit on the boring side for long stretches. You'd have to be a Middle Earth glutton to think otherwise. One thing this movie, and the first, did well is to show that the ring is technology and mastery over the world, and that our lust for it--so appropos in today's day and age--is going to lead to our destruction. Few, ironically, seem to get it. Fewer still understand that Tokien, a luddite of the first order, was condemning the engine of modern Europe and, more pointedly, America, where in a few short years we've acquired more Gollums (can you say, "Bill Gates," but certainly the rest of us, too) than one might have ever imagined. Here's to empty-hearted, lustful, compelling, dehumanizing, and meaningless attraction to progress, science, and money! Just don't look in the mirror too long.
|
