Rating: 
Summary: I`m sorry it ended..
Review: When the movie finished after almost three hours I was sorry it ended...Spectacular movie! I just wanna thanks Mr. Peter Jackson.The cast is marvellous, everything is top of the game. But just don't expect it to be so faithful an adaptation as the first film was. He centered around Aragorn. ... Also, I'd like to know, adding the totals from the first and second movies, how many creatures have Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli already killed. I think it may be a new world record for movies... GOLLUM is the treasure here. Simply perfect. All in all, Peter Jackson is giving a lesson to George Lucas of how to use special effects in pro of the history and, AT THE SAME TIME, to develop great characters and obtain great performances from his actors...
Rating: 
Summary: Stop Whining About The Adaption of The Book
Review: I wish all these people would stop grading this movie down because it deviates from the book. This is Hollywood people, not literary class 101. Making a film is a very different prospect from writing a novel. In Hollywood they are constantly changing the plotlines of books when adapting them to film. For Example, if you've ever read the novel The English Patient, and then watch the film, you will see that they are basically entirely different stories. The novel version worked for its author, winning the Booker prize, while the movie version worked for Hollywood, winning 9 Oscars. Peter Jackson took the source material and crafted it into what he considered to be the best story for the screen. I think people who judge this film against the novel are simply missing the point. When judged on its own merits, this is an outstanding film. If you liked the first movie you will not be dissapointed in the Two Towers, unless you are going to compare every plot change against the story as told in the book. This is not the novel The Two Towers, it is the film version and should be judged accordingly.
Rating: 
Summary: ...
Review: Two Towers is much more than the empty CGI mess of the new Star Wars films, but it is nevertheless not the masterpiece that some people are claiming. The film is lavish and has nice moments; but there is a distinct lack of movement and structure to it that causes it to not quite work. Specifically, the three major storylines never mesh or balance with each other. The two minor hobbits have nothing to do, and are extraneous characters. There is a general shapelessness to the film that makes it a confusing experience.
This shapelessness is due to the devotion to the storyline of the original book. This is a brave and foolish choice. ... The acting and cinematography are often heavy-handed, boring and melodramatic. Do we really need to see so many sweeping shots of the countryside? And do the actors have to speak-so-slowly? As if this is The Ten Commandments. When Gimli jokes about Dwarvish women, the tone of the film is improved a lot. The film is taken too seriously: no whismicality or spontaneity (sp?) to speak of. Same flaw was in FOTR. Enough has been said of the changes to the storyline that actually negate the story in the book. Specifically, the fact that we never know that the reason why Saruman had the minor hobbits captured is because they are thought to have the Ring. Saruman's rebellion against Sauron is never even alluded to! Frodo shows the ring to the Nazgul, thereby negating all the action of the War of the Ring, and also negating the surprise that the hobbits are supposed to have caused Sauron. One final negative: some characters are corny. The voices of Gollum, the Orcs and the Ents are very corny. They sound like some cheap Saturday morning cartoon characters, as well as being nearly impossible to comprehend. Now for the positives.
One: The film avoids many of the pitfalls of the preceding film. The static action scenes of the second half of FOTR ruined it for me; TT totally avoids that pitfall. The action scenes seem nicely paced, and actually have effect on the storyline! One action scene was invented for the film: the fight with the Warg-riders. However, this happened in The Hobbit; and besides, the sequence is very nicely done. Two: the grittiness of the atmosphere improves the appearance of the film. Despite an excess of sweeping shots, mentioned earlier, the griminess of the surroundings makes the film more interesting that the continuous goldenness/cleanness of FOTR.
Speaking of which, the props and sets are still *too complicated*! A little less curlicue and a little more simplicity would be easier on the eye. However, that's more of a subjective point. Three: Gollum still has some of the usual flaws of an animated character - i.e., the animators never seem to make him stay still, he has a silly voice. However, he is an interesting character, and the CGI does look as good as people say. Four: the battle scenes are as impressive as people say, especially the various siege devices. Saruman is depicted as using gunpowder, which fits in with his love of machines and explosions!
One minor point though: The orcs form up in very deep blocks-formations. No army in the world would form up in such deep formations. It makes the frontage of an army narrower, while getting no benefit from the rear ranks. This opens up the force to outflanking maneuvers, as well as being vulnerable to a collapse in the forward ranks. Ancient and mediaeval infantry would form up, on average, eight men deep. Yes, I know this is fantasy... Overall, TT is not quite as good as people seem to think. It's incoherent and sometimes corny and melodramatic. But it is still an entertaining film; it "works" in that sense, I suppose. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title
Rating:
Summary: I wish I'd stayed at home.
Review: I didn't see the first movie but I went to this one. Ugh. I'm not really a battle fan. Also, I've decided I prefer movies where you can look at the characters and not want to shield your eyes. Come on, do they really have to make squelching noises when a creature changes facial expressions? A good part of that movie could have been cut out. By the end of my movie I was fidgeting around in my seat because my back hurt due to the length. Their are pretty much no women in this, and the ones that are in the movie are undeveloped characters. If you do decide to go to this movie (although I really reccomend not seeing it or seeing the movie at home so you can fast-forward through parts of it) you should have seen the first one so you won't be as confused as I was. Another good idea would be to bring a flashlight and a good book if you get bored, unless you can fall asleep upon whim.
Rating: 
Summary: Headlong to Helm's Deep
Review: Faramir and Frodo in Osgiliath?...Nahhhhh...Peter Jackson blew it with that crap...Otherwise still a great movie...Can't wait till next year!...Don't expect any acting or best picture kudo's this year though...The story was too disjointed unless you saw the first and/or knew the books really well... Most of the beauty of the story seemed rushed...'Headlong to Helm's Deep', could've been the title... However, Gollum!!! what a marvel...There could possibly be a special acting category inaugurated this year for Gollum alone...Also I thought that Jackson had written out the Ents...I was amazed!!!...The flood was as first visualized 35 years ago... I just hope that the DVD version will restore some 'missing' parts to this all, as he did with 'Fellowship'...then in two summers, (2004) he can release all three 'longer' versions theatrically...(once they make back their money)...
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Ring: The Two Towers
Review: This was the best movie I've seen since, well...The Fellowship of the Rings. Not a moment of it was boring. And I must say that Elijah Wood does a great job in bringing out his character, Frodo. And so does all of the other acters. I really think that you should see this movie. But make sure your there early because you'll want to get a good seat. I was late and had to sit in the front. Bummer
Rating:
Summary: Why isn't there an Oscar for New Zealand?
Review: The Oscar-winning Fellowship of the Ring has been and gone. The Two Towers is the film of the moment. It's good. Cinema can't be exactly the same as the books on which they are based. And Peter Jackson gives more to do to characters like Arwen to demonstrate that she has a lot to give up to marry Aragorn and that even the deserving Eowyn cannot compete with her. One criticism in our group was that Faramir's character has been shot to pieces, but perhaps Peter Jackson needed to show Faramir's thought processes and the gravity of the eventual decision he made to let Frodo go. It did the previous portrayal of Boromir no harm either. John Rhys-Davies did a good job as Gimli and as the voice-over for Treebeard. Again it seemed to be necessary to demonstrate the arguments which persuaded such an unhasty character to go up against Saruman. The best actor in the show must surely be the one who played the partly computer-generated Gollum, who portrayed to perfection the two opposing facets to his character - Smeagol & the Gollum he had become. He even got to be heroic in the Dead Marches. But the real star of the series so far is New Zealand, itself. All that lovely scenery really sets off the story, and the co-operation of bit actors, extras etc must have been worth something. I think it will be necessary to see Return of the King to have a true opinion of the entire production. Peter Jackson left the Shelob bit to that last show, and it may have been not to have too many spider movies in one year. (8 legged creatures, Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets). I want to see what he actually does next December.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Film of the Year
Review: The Lord of the Rings:The Two Towers is a brilliant piece of work. It is just as enjoyable, if not more enjoyable then the first film. The Two Towers cannot really be better then The Fellowship of the Ring because they are really, in a sense, the same movie, only cut into three different parts, and are being released at three different times. This film is, however, darker and alot more intense then The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring. I have seen it twice already, and I will gladly see it many more times.
Rating:
Summary: A greater departure than the first film, but still great.
Review: In this second movie, Peter Jackson makes far grander changes than he did in the first film. Some dialog and plot has been simplified as it probably was needed to be, but there are also entire subplots that threaten to take our beloved characters in brand new directions. These changaes seem to add as many problems as they add great moments. However, Peter Jackson respects the source material and gently returns us to familiar territory in the end. I actually enjoyed the overall philosophy, as it made this film a mostly new experience for me, instead of always knowing what to expact next. Gollum is easily the best "new" part of this trilogy, as the most life-like CGI creation I've ever seen. Rumors of a first-ever Oscar nomination for a CGI actor are well deserved, as Gollum forfills his place as the great mystery of this story, a character that completely captivates and mystifies. Another high point is the huge final battle sequence at Helm's Deep. I didn't think this was a great a some would tell you - it is basically an extension of the opening battle scenes in the first movie, with lots of orcs clashing from different directions of the screen. I was much more impressed with the Clone Wars finale. Of course, the Two Towers shares the same problems of the first movie, and in fact these weaknesses are intensified. The pacing is still insanely fast and chaotic, cutting between 3, sometime 4 or 5 subplots! The director sometimes overpowers his actors' fine performances with melodramtic shots and music. Already, I am longing for the extended DVD version of this movie. If it adds as much material as the Fellowship of the Ring, then I'm sure any problems I have with this movie will be solved.
Rating:
Summary: Big!
Review: Big is the word that best characterizes Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. It's a film big in duration (179 minutes), big in special effects (just take a look at the army of tens of thousands of Uruk-Hais that Saruman is so proud of), and of course, big in intentions and scope. It tells three different stories, involving the members of the former fellowship. The first story describes Frodo's and Sam's attempts to find their way to Mordor. The second story is about Merry and Pippin, being captive by a horde of Orcs. The final story starts with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli hunting down the Orc captors of Merry and Pippin and ends with the climax of the film, the over 35 minutes Helm's Deep battle. What I did like about The Two Towers:
-- The opening sequence featuring the fight between Gandalf the Grey and the Balrog was effective and gripping. The film certainly starts with a bang.
-- I had my doubts about they way Ents (an ancient race of tree-like creatures) would appear on screen. Nevertheless, the result was most fitting.
-- The inner struggle of the Gollum was convincingly depicted. As for the Gollum itself, it was an impressive piece of CGI work.
-- The beautiful New Zealand landscape looks perfectly close to the Middle Earth that Tolkien himself had in mind. What I did not like about The Two Towers:
-- I would prefer it if the director told the story more in Tolkien's original, magical spirit (something that was evident in the first installment of the trilogy), than transform it into an action-packed extravaganza - but admittedly an engagingly told one.
-- Seemed to me (probably mistakenly) that the producers decided to close the film a bit earlier than its natural book ending, giving it a more smooth finish, in order to avoid all this displeasure that viewers expressed by the way Fellowship of the Ring "abruptly" ended a year ago. In my humble opinion, the book ending would be more appropriate, having the viewers scratching their heads in anticipation. Overall, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a grand movie, more easily accessible to the viewer than its predecessor, one that every fantasy adventure fan must see and should enjoy.
| 
