Rating: 
Summary: you have to see it
Review: I have seen, and I own both of the Lord of the Ring movies. These movies are the highlight of my day. If you want to see a movie that will move you, and keep you coming back for more, these are the movies for you. After the movies is finished, you won't be able to get them out of your head. You will become instantly addicted. That is how good these movies are. I am patiently waiting for the arrival of the third movie. You have to see it in theatres though, because you won't get the total effect of the movie if you don't.
Rating:
Summary: The Two Towers
Review: See this movie. At least three times. It was over so quickly I couldn't believe it, even though it is over 3 hours long. Needless to say, waiting for "The Return of the King" is the hardest part about loving this story. The digital format does justice to the story, and the battle scenes are utterly stunning and overwhelming. It is like nothing you have ever seen before.
And it's still only the middle part of the story.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Film, even for Tolkien Purists
Review: I think these so called Tolkien Purists need to wake up. This movie was wonderful. (The reason I didn't rate it five stars is the fact that I'm expecting the Return of the King to be any better.)
But back to my original point. I am a devoted reader of fantasy books, and have long loved Tolkiens trilogy. Personally, I'm amazed at how closely these guys followed the books. Oh no, you mean Aragorn didn't really jump off the wall!?!? BIG STINKIN' deal. That doesn't really impact the plot lines at all. The reason they took Frodo to Gondor was probably to help the viewer get a sense of the desperate situation there without wasting time throwing in side stories. You have to hand it to these men. They have followed the plots and made better movies than I would have ever expected in a thousand life times. Just look at Jurassic Park, or any movie based on a book. In the Book "Jurassic Park" the Grandpa was greedy and even died (among tens of other plot changes). These movies have helped the world visualize and appreciate Tolkiens world. I don't think Tolkien could have asked for anything more.
Rating: 
Summary: Beware, Middle-Earth has a New Dark Lord!
Review: Meaning well, a being of some power is seduced by the Ring. This being obtains their objective, becoming very powerful, and overthrowing Sauron as the new Dark Lord, controlling Middle-Earth! Who is this being? It's Peter Jackson! Meaning to create a trilogy of movies of a great, classic fantasy, the temptation of Jackson's ego becomes too great, and he creates his OWN Lord of the Rings...bringing to the screen something that only partially resembles the classic book.But my main objective of this review is to point out that there are significant differences between this movie and the book it's based on, and to those people that have not read "The Lord of the Rings" book(s), to please read the book. There are those that have read the book and seen the movie - some may like both or like the movie better...that is their rightful opinion. I now consider myself a "Tolkien purist"...I didn't know I was one before Jackson's movies came out, but, being that "The Lord of the Rings" is my favorite book, I was expecting spectacular movies in all aspects. I was disappointed with the first movie, but I am infuriated with this second movie. First let me state, that by definition, a real Tolkien purist cannot like this "The Two Towers" movie. A purist cannot tolerate any deviations, except, maybe, for the understandable & necessary condensing/consolidating needed to bring a book to the screen. After reading his biography, JRR Tolkien was the first & foremost Tolkien purist! He sold the movie rights 30+ years ago...never imagining a film or films could really be done. He would never have even bothered to see any movies...unless, I think, they got rave reviews and included every bit of dialogue, story, and descriptions in his book...a series of movies that probably would've totaled over 50 hours! He would not have been sympathetic to any changes needing to be done to bring his book to the screen. The positives of this movie:
Gollum; especially when his good side argues with his bad side. When his good side wins out temporarily until he feels betrayed by Frodo and then his bad side wins out, this the best example of positive artistic license! Book to movie comment: takes a few seconds to bring this out more than the book. (A personal rating: I give Gollum +5 points) Arwen sees in her mind's eye what the future will be like after Aragorn dies when her father Elrond tells her she'll regret her choice for Aragorn/mortality. Book to movie comment: this is described in the Appendix, adding time, but I thought it was perfectly done! (+1) Acting, with the exception of Faramir, is great! (+1) Visuals (costumes, special effects, settings, cinematography). Book to movie comment: these are exceptional! (+3) The neutrals in this movie:
King Theoden being possessed by Saruman. An example of acceptable artistic license...some may find it great. Book to movie comment: may add a few seconds to Theoden's transformation back to being the real King of Rohan. (0) The negatives in this movie:
Saruman being a complete lackey of Saruon's, thus leading to Merry & Pippin's escape because of the orc fight because Grishnakh wants to eat them?! Book to movie comment: Grishnakh is a Mordor orc, Ugluk is an Isengard orc - the orc fight occurs when more Mordor orcs arrive and Grishnakh is under orders to bring the hobbits to Sauron, while Ugluk is under orders to bring them to Saruman. That's because Saruman covets the ring for himself and, once he's got it, would've challenged Sauron. I don't see why there's this difference because it wouldn't have added time to the movie and unnecessarily takes away complexity that's in the book. (-4) Wargs attack Aragorn & Riders on way to Helm's Deep, and Aragorn falls over a height into a river. Book to movie comment: not in the book & takes a few minutes that could've been spent bringing out more of the book. (-1) Elves at Helm's Deep and death of Haldir. Book to movie comment: not in the book and takes up more time, plus Haldir doesn't die at all! (-2) Merry & Pippin make Treebeard take them past Isengard resulting in the Ents attack. Book to movie comment: the Ents make the decision to attack Saruman on their own in their Entmoot. I can't understand at all why this was done, and it changes the character of the Ents. They are tree-herders, and are sensitive enough to know when Saruman's orcs are killing trees. And the trees/Ents were very significant to Tolkien himself! (-5) Eomer leads the Riders that help turn the tide at Helm's Deep. Book to movie comment: Erkenbrand leads the Riders while Eomer fights in Helm's Deep. Women have few significant roles in the book. I think it would've been great to have Dernhelm lead the Riders! (-1 for the lost opportunity) Faramir decides to take Frodo, Sam, & Gollum to his father in Gondor, and the subsequent confrontation with a Nazgul. Book to movie comment: this was the most infuriating difference...it takes several minutes, too! Faramir is almost the exact opposite of his brother, Boromir. He shows significant wisdom by avoiding the Ring and letting the hobbits go. The encounter with the Nazgul is absurd! While this MAY set up scenes in the next movie (why Mordor's first attack is at Faramir in Osgiliath), it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that after one Nazgul was thwarted why the rest wouldn't immediately be upon the Ring-bearer...not to mention the Eye of Sauron! (-7) All other little differences between the book & movie in the story line or dialogue, including Arwen leaving Rivendell to sail West. (-3) When added up, my personal ratings total (-13), and that's the reason why I don't like this movie. I will not contribute any more money directly to Jackson & his cronies via theatre or video, because money is what they understand most. The movies have gotten a lot more people to read the book...that's great! I hope I can also get more people to read the book by pointing out how different this movie is.
Rating:
Summary: Cannot be compared
Review: First to the reviewer that insults 30 something's that like the book and calls us names and claims the films are for his generation. Uh, I like the books and the films, am thirty, and the books where published in 1957 - 60. They are not knew works that only 30 something geeks enjoy. So piss-off. You can't compare this to other cinema or to the books. TLOR films are there own entity, an interpretation visually of the Tolkien Novel (yeah, one novel, not three. The three book thing was just to off-set printing and binding cost) The continuation of the Fellowship begins within a day of the first film, the catapults into near hysterical abandonment. The film explodes so fast that's it's nearly dizzying. At the same time, when it stops, it feels stopped. When the endless shots of Merry & Pippin bouncing up and down on the Ent are finally over we have, well the movie pretty much ends 20 minutes later. The extended version seeks more balance of action and story. The most unfortunate parts of the film are three voice over montages with Elrod, Galadriel and Saruman telling us the story we are seeing. I hated the damn voice-overs, they where obviously just there explain to those who did not read the book what is going on. They are distracting and annoying and the hurt the film and insult the viewer. The entire sub-plot of Arwen facing life alone when Aragorn dies makes no sense. She gives up Immortality to marry him, she won't live forever when he dies -- Didn't Jackson read ALL the book? This wasn't just a change, I can accept change, I don't mind the Elves at Helms Deep or Farimer not being so wonderful as in the book, I don't care about that. But why add a long sub-plot into a long film that can't fit all the original story in? Making no comparisons to the books, it's near perfect, and longer is just better and more complex and interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Best Comedy of the Year!
Review: Best Comedy of the Year? No, it's not the movie. It's this forum. Tolkien purists and closet critics please put it to rest. Yes, no film budget in the world can truly bring a good work of text to the screen. Yes, essential Tolkien themes and characters never made it to the theatre. Yes, your mind's eye was raped with someone else's perceived narrow view. -- Get over it. The 'feeble' attempt, as some are inclined to avow, that Peter Jackson and company performed in bringing LOTR to the screen resulted in some of the most memorable film making ever created. Yes, I've read Tokien's works many times over and was also disappointed in some of the edits, modifications and fabrications in the screenplay. I would consider that disappointment the driving factor for buying or renting the extended editions. Jackson and Co., go to great lengths describing their methodology and process during the book to screen process. Their attention to detail and each individual contributor's motivation are well documented in the extended editions. Those who dislike the trilogy simply upon the basis that it doesn't meet their expectations after reading the works in print are truly missing out. Cheers, D
Rating:
Summary: Special Extended DVD Edition
Review: If you are smart then you will buy the Special Extended DVD Edition of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". I highly recommend it to anyone who has read "Lord of the Rings" book trilogy. It is expected to go by the book trilogy even better than the origional version; and it is said that it will have better special features than the theatrical version. I own "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Cut on DVD and I must say that it is way better than the origional version. So, therefore, "The Two Towers" Extended Cut DVD should be fantastic, just like its Extended Cut movie-prequel. I am going to buy it when it is released in stores.
Rating:
Summary: Not a purist, but...
Review: The reason why the previous reviewer found the Tolkien trilogy to be "longwinded tripe" is clear: people who do not understand the agelessness of certain values like wisdom and sacrifice would not like such a long and complex book, particularly if they cannot spell or punctuate. As a TWENTY-something, I can appreciate Jackson's action-packed revision of one of my favorite books, but I do take issue with the way the film changes Faramir's character from a wise, noble, and "misunderstood" younger son to a shortsighted and selfish brat who's no better than Boromir. To a lesser extent, it bothers me that the faithfulness of Aragorn and Arwen's love is called into question. It seems like Jackson could have revised the NARRATIVE to appeal more to a 21st-century audience without undermining the spirit of the trilogy.
Rating:
Summary: Extremely entertaining!
Review: I recently read the Lord of the Rings and found it quite boring. However, I wouldn't of read that longwinded tripe if I didn't first see the films that which I thought were very entertaining cinema. I'm sure that there are a legion of you long winded over opinionated 30-somethings that would disagree, but I think for this generation, the film was a great piece of work...it had everything...adventure, romance, drama...all in a sweeping epic. The books droned on and on about a history that you supposed of had known and was mindboggling in depth and headache inducing. The films however were pure and prestine.
Rating:
Summary: Sam Cable-GET A LIFE!!!!!
Review: It is literally impossible to translate everything onto film unless you want to watch a 20 hour movie. Who cares if he took some liberties with aspects of the book, the film is true to the ESSENCE and STORY. If I want to indulge myself in the complete lore of Tolkien, I will read the book. If I want to indulge myself with an excellent interpretation of the story, I will watch this fantastic movie. I recommend it to everyone!!
| 
