Rating: 
Summary: A New Standard In Filmmaking Excellence
Review: It's hard to know where to begin in articulating a coherent summary of so spectacular an epic as Peter Jackson's rendering of Tolkein's masterpiece. Perhaps the most incisive comment I can make is that, having been a fan of "The Lord of the Rings" since I first read the trilogy nearly 35 years ago, I'm impressed by Jackson's fidelity to the spirit of the original literary work."The Two Towers" is a very different kind of film than its predecessor. Don't expect the intimacy of "The Fellowship of the Ring"; the evolution of the story precludes it. The dissolution of the Fellowship scattered the principal characters of the first film into three distinct sub-plots: Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), whose capture by the Uruk-Hai takes them into Fangorn Forest and their ultimate influence on the fate of Saruman (Christopher Lee); Legolas (Orlando Bloom), Gimli (John Rhys-Davies), and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who re-unite with a resurrected Gandalf (Ian McKellan) in the climactic battle of Helm's Deep; and Frodo (Elijah Wood) & Sam (Sean Astin), who continue their quest to destroy the Ring at Orodruin (ably played by Mount Doom) in Mordor. That's a lot of threads to weave into the overall tapestry of the story, and it necessarily calls for some fairly abrupt and rapid scene changes. The action is so fast-paced that you will barely have time to catch your breath. One of the most personally meaningful aspects of the film -- and so far, it has been true of both "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers" -- is Jackson's uncompromising adherence to Tolkein's vision of the timelessness of the story itself. The author was determined NOT to write a story that served as an allegory for any of the current events of his time, but rather hoped to address much broader issues that are rooted in the fundamentals of human nature. In so doing, the trilogy has remained relevant to the human condition in a way that transcends nationalities, ethnicities, and the various idiosyncratic cultural zeitgeists of any of the historical periods it has spanned. I find real personal relevance in Aragorn's struggle with his own destiny. It's not a predetermined kind of destiny, as in "fate", but rather the self-determined destiny of one who follows his heart and his own integrity. Ditto for Eowyn (Miranda Otto), whose struggle to fulfill her desire for valor in the service of good is established in "The Two Towers", and will culminate in the final installment, "The Return of the King". But Jackson's triumph runs much deeper than his artistry in character development; many great films share that characteristic. It is his mastery in the use of surpassing technological innovation as an aid in the storytelling rather than as an end in itself that raises the bar for all subsequent films. His combination of digital, fabricated, and natural scenery in creating the world of Middle Earth is simply breathtaking. The battle scenes are terrifying without being overwhelming in their reliance on gratuitous violence or gruesome bloodshed. [I will allow my daughters (8 and 12 years of age) to watch the films, and I am probably more protective of their sensibilities than most parents I know.] And Jackson's creation of the creature Gollum (Andy Serkis) is without equal or precedent in filmmaking history. Gollum is more than simply "believable"; he is real. His role in the story is pivotal, and it was Jackson's test of fire to create an all-digital character whose range of expression and movement could carry such an important part in the story. It is a masterpiece of moviemaking art. It will seem incomprehensible to the uninitiated that my only lament about the three-hour film is that it is too short. That's hardly a criticism, for Jackson has included everything that is relevant to the story line in setting the stage for the trilogy's climax in the third film. As a matter of practicality, the film can't exceed three hours for simple economic reasons. A longer film would mean fewer showings -- not good for the profitability of movie theatres -- or a higher price of admission, which would not be popular with moviegoers. So, the filmmaker has had to accommodate those constraints, and I believe it's a job well done. Still, it's inevitable that one who has read the book will find discrepancies or omissions in the film, but that's not the basis of my wish that the film were longer. Rather, it's more a matter of being sorry that it was over at the end. "The Two Towers" is so captivating, so utterly engrossing a film-watching experience, that I found myself wanting more. What better statement could one make about the success of the filmmaker who wants his customers to come back for the third and final part of this epic trilogy? The consolation to those who want more will undoubtedly be in the release of the special edition DVD, which -- like its counterpart for "The Fellowship..." -- will add significant additional footage to the theatrical version. Finally, for all the unparalleled technological excellence of the film, the most compelling reason of all to see it is the story itself. If you love great movies crafted by professionals with vision who tell a remarkable story exceedingly well, you simply must see "The Lord of the Rings". It's clear that the trilogy has found a special place in moviegoers' hearts. I saw "The Two Towers" at Edwards Cinema in Brea, California at a matinee showing on December 23, 2002, in a full-house audience of people of all ages. When the initial title "The Lord of the Rings" appeared on the screen, the audience spontaneously burst into applause. I have never seen that happen at any movie I have ever attended, and for good reason - there has never been a movie like this before.
Rating: 
Summary: SLOWER AND NO SHELOB
Review: Shelob? Who or what is that? If you haven't read the book, don't worry, you'll meet her in the beginning of Return of the King, next Christmas. In Tolkien, however, Shelob appears at the very end of The Two Towers. There are three major "parts" to this movie, each "part" has its own cast. They are as follows: The Sam, Frodo, and Gollum part: Sam and Frodo continue to take the ring to Mordor, however, they get lost. Gollum, from now on known as Smeagol (Smee-Goal), finds them and promisesss to lead them to Mordor, yesss. As far as CGI characters go, Smeagol far surpasses Yoda. In fact, Smeagol is of the same quality--and perhaps better--than the human-like CGI characters in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. That's saying ALOT. The best part of the Sam/Frodo/Smeagol part is watching Smeagol have conversations with himself. One part of him is despiccably evil. You hates Smeagol, yesss. The other part of him is rational, trying to be good. You likes Smeagol. The Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli part: The three are still searching for Merry and Pippin but with no luck. They end up meeting King Theoden and his dark servant (Wormwood? Wormtongue? It's been awhile since I read the book). Gandalf the White appears and performs a sort of excorcism on the possessed King Theoden. Now that he's rational again (sorta), King Theoden marches his people to Helm's Deep, a strong fortress and place of safety. There, the main characters of this part and their forces make a stand against some 10,000 enemies. This last battle is really excellent, except for the fact that Peter Jackson has a nasty habit of getting too close to the action sometimes, resulting in blurry scenes of action. The Merry and Pippin part: The two hobbits escape from the Orcs and find themselves in Fangorn forest, where they're found by a kindly Ent (A walking, talking tree). This part is very short in comparison but the end where the Ents attack Isengard is worthwhile. Fellowship of the Ring was very linear but easy to follow. The Two Towers skips around the three "parts", sometimes making it hard to follow. Also, I found the Two Towers to be much slower moving--especially the middle. But don't let these things prevent you from seeing this movie. It still TOWERS over most fantasy movies and even movies in general.
Rating:
Summary: ......I talk to the trees ..........
Review: ....this one's a teensy tough on the glutes [and other senior organs]; but WOW! What a Journey, and it's not over yet! ANDY SERKIS dominates as Gollum - incredible performance considering that visually its CGI, but Mr. Serkis touch is quite indelible - please don't forget him at Nom time!!! Costumes, sets, Art direction - monumental - along the lines of a D.W.Griffith epic - as a matter of fact - must have had the same inpact with "Intolerance" give or take 8 decades ago ... Viggo Mortensen - Liv Tyler? So much more than picture perfect lovers, now just who was that Victorian Artist - specializing in Romantic Postures? Mr. Mortensen and Ms. Tyler fit perfectly - - people to inhabit one's dreams. On the darker side - Brad Dourif adds just that special touch of menace .... and the rest of the gang are 'baack' .... including Christopher Lee. BUT the visuals dominate here - Mr. Jackson is well worth immortality status as director. For the neophyte - the theme? Universal love - and mankind's foolishness ... Well, back to those lovable Trees .....
Rating:
Summary: THIS IS NOT A REVIEW FOR THE TRAILER, IT'S FOR THE MOVIE!
Review: What is up with people writing a review of a trailer? How helpful is that? I have seen the movie twice, and read the books more times than I can count. (I think it's 13) This movie is an unparalleled (except for the first movie) visual achievement. It is breathtaking, and truly transports you to middle-earth just as the first film did. I give this movie five stars with two small reservations. First, Jackson took a lot of liberties with the story this time. I thought his decisions were right on, and made for a better movie than if he'd been truer than the book. Some things work much better on the page than the screen and vice versa. But purists beware! This is not the book on the big screen. Second, I think that even more than the first movie, you need to have read the books to really appreciate it. Some of the nice touches that made fans jump in their seats for joy will not be such a big deal to the non-fan: things like (POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD) Aragorn listening to the ground, Legolas and Gimli having an "orc-killing" contest, Oliphaunts, and Ents. The Ents struck me as very wooden characters however. Okay, get it...wooden? You can stop laughing and read on, now, that was a joke. I think it's astonishing that just about every line from Gollum is straight from the book. The movie-stealer is Gollum. I had to pinch myself to remember at times that this was not a real person on screen. Even close up, he was very convincing. True, there was something in the eyes that was not totally life-like, but I was totally hooked, not like Yoda and Jar-Jar (who must die, by the way) this was a real character. Andy Serkis, who set the movement for the character and the voice, deserves special recognition. Although we don't see his face in this movie, he is the best actor in it. Aragorn is really turning into the regal King he needs to become for the third movie to really work, and Legolas and Gimli are awesome too, although i'd like to see more of their friendship growing. Oh, well, maybe in ROTK. Sam has become quite the adventurer, but Frodo shows almost no growth in this movie. Let's be fair, I don't think he shows much growth in the book, either. And I know everyone might disagree with me here, but I don't know how necessary the opening scene is. I don't think it was necessary to revisist the Balrog scene (cool to see it from completely different camera angles, though, wasn't it...) especially since when Gandalf returns as Gandalf the White we revisit it for a moment anyway. Those precious minutes could've been re-allocated to the friendship of Gimli and Legolas or something. I know they were trying to keep the movie under 3 hours, probably at the (correct) insistence of New Line. Stop reading these reviews, though, and go see it. These are films that deserve to be enjoyed, and on the big screen, more than once if you can. Alas, this appears to be only my second favorite movie of all time, though. I think I liked FOTR a touch more. But that's like saying I like The Godfather a touch more than The Godfather Part II, or that I liked Blue a little more than Red or White, or Army of Darkness more than Evil Dead 2. You get the picture.
Rating:
Summary: Worth your time and money
Review: The second movie in the trilogy, while not as true to the book's storyline as the first release, is still absolutely breathtaking entertainment. Some fans of the book will no doubt cry foul at some of Peter Jackson's additions, but the movie was still very entertaining and worth multiple viewings for book and movie fans.
I thought this movie would be much more violent and overall darker than the first - I was wrong. Because the movie ends differently than the book, a large portion of that "dark" part is left for the third movie, "Return of the King." If you could handle the violence in the first one, you should be fine with the second one.
One of the best performances was from Gollum, a.k.a. Smeagol, the creature that's hunting the ring. Yes, I realize his performances wasn't simply the performance of one man, but a team. Still, it was absolutely riveting at parts. He totally lived up to my expectations, and even surpassed them.
If you're interested in some of the additions Peter Jackson added to this film that weren't in the book (or not featured as prominently):
- the romance between Aragorn and Arwen is not touched very much, especially not in the second book. Not at all to the extent seen in the movie.
- A scene that involves Aragorn (I'll say it's before the Elves come to Helm's Deep... the Elves are also not in the book) is not present in the book.
- Treebeard the Ent, a new character in the second book, is not portrayed quite how I would have done it. He seems surprised to learn of the slaughtered trees, though in the book he knows of it the whole time. The same result is in both book and movie, but I think Treebeard is a little too hasty in the movie. Still, I did enjoy him, as the Ents are my favorite characters in the series.
Overall, an entertaining movie that definitely gives you your seven bucks' worth. And that's what a movie in the theater is supposed to do, right? (I have a theory about how book-to-movie adaptations may be changing with the release of the Fellowship of the Ring: Special Extended Version DVD, but that's for another time and place!) Enjoy it!
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Fantastic
Review: I know I loved Fellowship of the Rings. But I hate to admit it fell short compared to Two Towers. The darkness of the film was fantastic. The Battle at Helms Deep had me on the edge of my seat, literally. I was moved to cry, laugh and cheer. I think of all the films I have seen in theaters this year Two Towers is definately my favorite. I know Lord of the Rings fans will love it...and I think those who aren't fans will still love it. I went and saw it twice in a weekend. And would go again.
Rating: 
Summary: Loved FOTR, hated TTT
Review: I hated The Two Towers. Now, I'm not such a purist that I hate any kind of deviation from the books, but in The Two Towers Peter Jackson didn't just change some scenes, he also changed major characters and consequently the whole logic behind the story. Why?! I can only think of one reason: everyone in the cinema must be convinced that Aragorn is the one true hero of the movie. Let me explain. In the last half hour of TFOTR we see Aragorn refuse the Ring. In the books it is Faramir who does that. Faramir is a noble character. As noble as Aragorn, but more human and therefore more likable. In the movie Faramir has changed into an evil carbon-copy of Boromir who captures the hobbits and takes them to the city of Osgiliath only to release them after Frodo (who strangely has changed into a Psycho-hobbit, but then *Sam* has turned into Marten Luther King apparantly, with all the speeches he spews - with apologies to MLK) has nearly given the Ring to the Nazgul. Now, what is the one great big underlying logic in the books? Why do Frodo and Sam succeed against such great evil? Because Sauron - being evil - cannot comprehend that anybody who posessess the Ring won't use it. Aragorn looks for that purpose into the Palantir, so Sauron will get distracted (Sauron expects Aragorn to have the Ring and use it) and to buy the Ringbearers more time. That's why the great big battles are being fought, against overwhelming odds, against all better judgement: to buy more time because you cannot fight evil with swords and arrows (hear that mr Bush?). In the movie however, it's all about swashbuckling Aragorn who almost singlehandedly battles 10.000 orks. Everybody else are supposedly idiots who simply don't know what they're doing (Theoden suddenly becomes a stupid stubborn king who leads his people into a trap at Helmsdeep, Faramir turns into a baddie - why should Eowyn ever fall in love with *him*?) and Sauron and the Nazgul are - for all that Sauron is a giant all-seeing Eye - simply blind: they literary see Frodo with the Ring in Osgiliath, they now KNOW the Ring is carried by a Hobbit near their borders, but they simply ignore that fact and let him crawl into Mordor. Yeah, sure. Add to that a lot of annoying, unnessesary botched details (Gandalf claiming to have lived in Middle-Earth for 300 years instead of 2000, the Warg-fight and Aragorn falling down a cliff - hello? are we talking about the same books here? - and Legolas surfing down some stairs on a shield, not to mention the lost chances in regard to the Ent-scenes) and you know why I exited the cinema with clenched fist, all but foaming round the mouth. If the FotR had been equally bad, I would have just shrugged my shoulders but because the FotR was so utterly brilliant I could have just wept. Such opportunities you had, Peter Jackson, and you botched it! The only reason I give two stars is because Gollum was so spot on. The only one in the entire movie perhaps who stayed in character. Too bad.
Rating:
Summary: Good, But Vastly Disappointing After TFOTR. (SPOILERS)
Review: I'm pretty sure I feel this way because it's the middle of the trilogy...and middles are usually the least of all three. Because..well...it's the MIDDLE, which means that there really isn't a beginning or an end, and events that are supposed to be triumphant accomplishments come off as hardly climactic; they just make you think: "Okay, this is good, but there's far more to come. GET ON WITH THE STORY!!!". Now, don't get me wrong, this is a good movie, and if you like the first one, you obviously have to see it. But while "The Fellowship of the Ring" is the best, the all-time greatest, THE NUMBER ONE MOVIE EVER MADE, "The Two Towers" comes off as nothing more than an enjoyable action/war movie. Needless to say, "The Two Towers" is very different from "The Fellowship of the Ring". War has broken out in Middle Earth, and the Fortress of Sarumon, has formed a legion with the Tower of Sauron (I forgot the names of both towers...in fact, I don't think either names are mentioned once in the movie!). The story now parts three seperate ways: Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are now on a quest to rescue Merry and Pippin from the band of Uruk-hai that captured them at the end of the first film. But they have escaped, into the hands of the kind Treebeard, an Ent. This part of the story tends to drag, and only kicks in at the end, when the Ents assault on Isengard, and kick those Orcs' butts! (Watching Sarumon (Christopher Lee) just stand there in the window in disbelief and watching his fortress crumble at the hands of the Ents, while kind of stupid as he doesn't try to do a bloody thing and just stands there doing nothing, is very pleasing to behold.) Now, on to Frodo and Sam, who continue their quest to destroy the One Ring. On the way, they meet up with Gollum, whom they force to lead them to Mordor. Gollum is, of course, computer-animated, but it is barely noticeable. Over time, Frodo becomes more and more close to Gollum, and the two form an unspoken friendship. Meanwhile, Sam and Frodo are growing more and more apart, as the Ring begins to consume Frodo. Andy Serkis, as the voice and movements of Gollum, gives the best performance in the whole movie; you really get to feel for Gollum, and pity him and all the hardships he has faced at the hands of the Ring. This section holds the most drama in the movie, in watching the two hobbits' friendship drift apart, and Gollum's sorrow. Unfortuanately, the whole story seems far less concerned with the Ringbearer's task (which should be the centerpiece of the movie), and far more with Aragorn, as he bands with the men of Rohan against the army of 10,000 Uruk-hai at the Battle of Helm's Deep, the biggest movie battle perhaps, ever. However, while the battles in "The Fellowship of the Ring" had you literally jumping out of your seats and holding your breath, the battles in "The Two Towers" don't, and this is ultimately harmful to the movie. Also, the music isn't a tenth as well as in the first installment, which was the finest music ever written. The only reliefs are when old tunes from the first one are recycled. The characters are really drawn down to two-dimensional status, especially those of Gandalf and Sarumon. Gandalf comes off as nothing more than a glowing thing who comes to save the day. Sarumon is now nothing more than a pale spectre standing around and looking menacing. In the first movie, he was the ultimate screen villain, and made you love to hate him, and hate to love him. Simillarly, Gandalf was once a powerful personification of all that is good in the universe, and Ian McKellen should've won his Best Actor Nomination at the Oscars. Now, he's hardly even essential to the movie, or so it seems. There is much more background of the love relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, and you truly feel for the love that is shared between them, and for the sacrifices they are willing to make for eachother. The choice that Arwen must make in the end is devistating, and heart-breaking. But the addition of another woman in the story is pointless, and does nothing more than add a stupid love triangle. A major plus to the film is the comedic relief mainly based on the relationship between Legolas and Gimli. It's very funny! "The Fellowship of the Ring" was a fantasy with equal amounts of drama and action. "The Two Towers" is hardly as great as that was. The focus is more on the world of men, and %99.9 of the magic and awe that dominated the first film is lost here, and the world of Middle Earth seems no more than an area of our world that is barren of cities. In "The Fellowship of the Ring", you were totally swept away into another world, and forgot all reality. Well, not anymore. Like I said, it's a war movie, as well as the middle of a story. So the pace is (or atleast tries to be) more hectic, action-packed, bloody, dark....and in the end it is depressing and disappointing, as you'll walk out of the theatre feeling. (As I did one hour ago.) Like I said, it's worth seeing, but it's nowhere near as good as the first film. Let's just hope that things shape up a bit in "The return of the King"! (I'm sure thay will.)
Rating:
Summary: The movie is a mind-blowing, mind-boggling masterpiece!
Review: "Lord of the rings: the Two towers" is undeniably the number one film of 2002. It's an awe-inspiring fantasy. The savagery of warfare and the presence of fatality being imagined with such sumptuousness haven't been this good in a long time. The beautiful cinematography is bound to impress you. The movie does get a little slow around the middle when Aragorn dreams of Arwen but the movie soon paces up quickly. Despite the fact that the movie isn't as hearty as the first one (Fellowship of the rings), this sequel is even better. The suspense, battling the Orcs, and the visual pleasure of the eye-catching landscapes is all wonderful. The movie even has the soothing score to fit the scenes making the scenes perfectly in the mood of the movie. The movie is a mind-blowing, mind-boggling masterpiece of a mess! The Two towers is the middle third of an epic that will doubtlessly excel as one of the most courageous and victorious films in motion-picture history. It's an epic of grandeur. Spectacular, thrilling, and significantly touching, it's the very description of heroic adventure. It has the fighting that 'Star Wars episode II' has, the heroic adventure that 'Spiderman' has, the moving scenes that 'The good girl' has, and the imaginative creatures not to mention a great novel that 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of secrets' has so in short 'The two towers' is a wrap-up of all the critically successful films of 2002. Peter Jackson's excellent movie makes you forget that the most horrific and sinister scenes are yet to be seen in 2003's 'Lord of the rings: The return of the king'. It's a thought-provoking work of art. It makes you wonder how the third movie will ever compete with the second but that's what we thought when we watched the first movie. The cast ensemble was of coarse excellent and the battle of Helm's Deep is one of the best, most outgoing battle sequences ever to be showed on the big movie screen. The movie will have you at the edge of your seat at all times. You'd forget everything. It's just like actually playing the Two towers game. Now this is filmmaking on a supreme level; inspiring, stirring, and ideal. When the hours long movie is over, you can just not stop wanting more. The movie is definitely built on numbers like the countless numbers of Orcs, the movie budget, the prediction of the movie's box-office gross, and let's not forget the 26,000 extras. The balance of supremacy is uneven across Middle-earth. Two Towers - the Dark Lord Sauron's dominating place at Barad-dûr and the wizard Saruman's place at Orthanc - have allied to fight in opposition to all civilization, and bring about the ending of the race of Humankind. The mortifying evil of The One Ring, forged by Sauron, has split the Fellowship that stuck together to destroy it. The quest has already claimed the life of the Wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and the Human Boromir (Sean Bean). Only the Hobbit Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) has shown some resistance to its great power, which makes him solely capable to be the Ring bearer. Now Frodo must face his fate unaided. Accompanied only by his reliable companion, Sam, Frodo goes into evil lands uninformed that he is on the trail of Gollum who previously owned the ring. I won't tell you the rest. It'll spoil it! Overall it's an exceptional movie. It's something that'll get rave reviews in all reader's (watcher's) response journals. The Fellowship of the rings showed why the ring was important to the characters and now the sequel explains why the ring is important to us. The sequel is something you can watch for a long time on the cinemas while you wait for the third movie in the trilogy. Peter Jackson is like Joseph L. Mankiewicz (Cleopatra-1963) in the way that he uses an expensive budget to make his movie a masterpiece also not caring how long the movie runs for. He is also like David Lean (Dr. Zhivago) in the way that he uses spectacular cinematography to impress us. And last but not least he's like Steven Spielberg in the way that he creates movies that impress the generations and in the way that he will too leave a great effect in motion picture history.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent movie, but not an excellent adaptation.
Review: I loved the movie. If you want to know what the movie did right, read the hundreds of other reviews. They're probably all correct. The action scenes were fantastic, the music was engaging, and the movie itself was great. All of this was also true of the Fellowship of the Rings movie, however, and Peter Jackson stayed true to the novel with few exceptions, such as Arwen taking Frodo to Rivendell. This particular change was so female movie-goers wouldn't feel so left out. Unfortunately, Jackson abandons his dedication towards authenticity in favor of his own revisions this time around. In the middle of the movie, a twenty-minute segment shows up that will not be found in any version of the book. The scenes prominently feature three characters who aren't even in the Two Towers book.
*Spoilers*
Twenty minutes of Arwen, Elrond, and Galadriel that had no purpose except to let those viewers who for whatever reason thought the Lord of the Rings was a love story have their moments of happiness, and maybe so Jackon could have those actors in all three movies. The only other purpose of the segment was to provide of a reason for a few hundred Elven archers to show up at Helm's Deep. Mr. Jackon, if you're going to add elements to the story, you don't have to spend an eighth of the movie setting up for it. There were numerous other new things (Aragorn going off the cliff, a shameless copy of the gunpowder-"keep that candle away" scene from Army of Darkness, and the Uruk-hai's use of World War I seamines. All of these are fine. Really, they are. They make the movie more dramatic, give it style. In my opinion, it's an acceptable transition from book to movie. The twenty minute segment though...ugh. It's a great movie, but I am of the people who read the book long before this movie was announced. I couldn't help walking out of the theater with a little bit of disappointment.
|
