Rating: 
Summary: This is a great MOVIE.
Review: By this point, people interested in this movie are probably already in one of two camps: A) Loved it; B) Hated it. The storyline does not always adhere religiously to that laid down by the Professor all those years ago when he wrote the Lord of the Rings, but Pete Jackson does a FREAKING GREAT job of carrying on the story HE established in the first movie. The character moments are wonderful, the set pieces spectacular, the effects mind-blowing. It is... difficult... at times to do so, but the people that have problems with the screen versions of the LORD OF THE RINGS generally cannot accept that modifications are necessary in order to see this story on screen at all. And this is a great presentation. Fellowship of the Ring was fantastic, and The Two Towers equally so. I expect The Return of the King to be mind-blowing as well. If you can accept that change is sometimes necessary, do NOT pass up an opportunity to experience this story on film.
Rating:
Summary: the lord of the rings the two towers
Review: this movie is the second installment in the lord of the rings trilogy this movie holy grail of scifi movies but it has the best orginal score i have heared in a movie in decades. The plot is thick but not diffcult to comperihed. It will ingulf you it to this world that is the lord of the rings. Great action beatiful scenery and geart speacial effects.The acting is amazingly deep and profound. iF you like action sci fi and or even just like watching movies this is the entire package.this one of the great movies of 2002-2003 and even in the history of cinema.not to be missed no matter. if you are if your 8 or 80 you will rember this movie for along time
Rating:
Summary: A tribute
Review: I have to say that Peter Jackson is an artisitc genius and the care that he has used in attempting to transform the greatest books of all time into excellent movies. Everyone knows that when a book goes Hollywood not everything can be transfered word for word, but Jackson manages to capture the heart of the books performing phenomenally. Not only are the special effects above par, but they are blended smoothly with exceptional acting and breath taking scenery. An exceptional movie that raises the bar for Hollywood
Rating: 
Summary: Two tower busted
Review: Look I've been eagerly awaiting this gift set like everybody else. But I thought that since it was called the TWO TOWERS that the figurine would be of the TWO TOWERS not their CGI brat Gollem. This is a nasty surprise. I for one would not buy the gift set. Save yourself some money and just get the DVD. ...
Rating:
Summary: Treat it for what its is!
Review: Too many people that have enjoyed the books over the years want to see exactly what Tolkien wrote translated to the big screen...there is no way this could happen and keep the movies under 4 hours each. I think there are a few things that were changed that I didn't agree with but that does not change my opinion of how great this movie was. The scenery was yet again spectacular and the actors took their roles to heart and played each with intensity. I cannot wait to see the extended edition as I was very satisfied with the extended edition of Fellowship. Thank you Peter Jackson for providing us with a true jewel in film history.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated
Review: Much more so than "Fellowship of the Ring", this chapter focuses too much on overrated special effects. Like Lucas, Peter Jackson seems to believe that these CGI effects are better than they are and that they can carry a movie. I felt this way when I saw the movie at the theater and feel even more so having seen it on TV- the battle scenes have little substance and attempt to (ineffectively) fool you into believing that there is actually a detailed scene occurring on the screen. In reality, I find them blurry, dark and confusing. Battle was certainly a key part of Tolkien's work, but was really only peripheral to a much larger whole. I don't want to see a fantasy version of "Braveheart" when watching LOTR (at least "Braveheart" used real people to recreat its battle scenes). Gollum, on the other hand, was wonderful and his scenes are the redeeming feature of this chapter. He's no Jar Jar Binks, that's for sure. I had always imagined Gollum to be a black, froglike creature (no doubt this was formed by watching the cartoon version of "The Hobbit"). However, this pale, more human version seems much more accurate to Tolkien's vision and I can easily adapt my imagination to accept this thing as how Gollum should truly look. I'm not one to insist that a movie be a literal adaptation of a book- it should be an interpretation but not a scene by scene reenactment of the author's every word. I think the Harry Potter movies, as good as they are, are a bit too sterile and took the safe path when adapting those books. However, some of the added and changed scenes really detract from Tolkien's works- I won't give away spoilers, but this veered much further away from the book than did the first movie. Again, I think a lot of that was done in order to emphasize the battle scenes. But there are some major changes to some important characters (Faramir, the Ents, Saruman) that really detract from my enjoyment. And the added scene with Aragorn and the worg and the cliff is almost comical. This movie is still essential viewing, especially if you invested time in watching the first one. I suspect that when these films are finished, it will be best viewed as one long movie rather than three individual parts. Worthy adaptations of Tolkien, but too much emphasis on superficial qualities and overuse of overrated and unproven technology. They LOOK good and are technically proficient, but somehow don't quite capture the spirit of what I took away from the books.
Rating:
Summary: The incredible media of FILM isnt LITERATURE
Review: I am so tired of hearing people .... on this film, because TOM BOMBADIL isnt in it. Like the one writer said in an interview, if you like, the Hobbits COULD HAVE encountered him, and the movie doesnt mention it. After all, film is a different media than books. It's closer to PAINTING. It's closer to THEATER. It's closer to SYMPHONIC MUSIC. And, if you look at all the adaptations of FAUST over the years, into operas, paintings, and so on, they are NOT direct adaptations of Goethe's masterpeice. Nor should they be. No one should go into this film expecting the book to be transfered word for word. As for Arwen's role, well, there are almost NO female characters in the book. Arwen's tale is in the apendix, so I accept it. BUT, the extra footage in the TWO TOWERS might help. (It certainly did in FOTR.) You will get to see Smeagol's tale told. You will see more of Sam and Frodo wandering around the mountains, more of the Steward of Gondor's family relationships. The ent draught scene is reinserted, where Merry and Pippin grow 3". The Ent battle scene at Isengard is longer. 40 minutes is a lot of time to add more Tolkien vision, so I expect the expanded edition to blow the original film away. Honestly, compaired to the HORRIBLE cartoon adaptations from the 1970s, people should be worshipping these films. I am utterly amazed that they were able to bring THIS MUCH of the book into a film. The technical challanges, of having the Ents go entering the battle of Helm's deep, would have been nearly impossible. In fact, having Elfs show up, makes a bit more sense. I didnt understand why Aragon had to fall off the cliff. But, i suppose it was to set up part of how Eowyn feels about Aragon, and her unrequited love, as well as Aragon's supernatural powers. These things have to transfer visually, since in film, you cant have long narative dialogue explain it all. However, I suppose it will be the third film's removal of the distruction of the Shire by Saruman, that might upset people the most. It must have been nessacary for shortening the film's already 11+ hour lenght, if you add together all the extended versions. If you will never accept that film and book, are two different artforms, then just stay at home, and ignore the film. Why cast your vitriol all over the film, for those that will NEVER read the books? At least they got a taste of Tolkien's genius. A morsel of food is better than no food at all, especially if the food is LEMBAS. And you are starving for ANYTHING.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing Movie!
Review: I thought the movie was amazing. The detail that has gone into making the movie is also amazing. I think that those who are unable to see past the books to enjoy the movie-version, really are missing out. There is no movie in existence that has ever fully followed a book in it's entirely - yet these movies have done a good job of bringing Middle Earth alive. And for those of us out there who haven't read the books yet, the movies make me want to sit down and finally read the books!
Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but pretty darn good
Review: Overall Viewpoint: Well worth watching, for people who have AND haven't read the book. Can't wait for the extra footage. Note to Whiners: What did you expect? Tolkien's work could never be turned into another format. I've read the books six or seven times, and I'm quite aware of the atmosphere of otherworldliness that he creates. The movies are much closer to the books than most book-to-movie massacres, and Jackson DID manage to bring some of the feeling of the books to the big screen. Props to him. I don't like the changes to the plotline, but this is still a masterpiece. Not a masterpiece on par with the books, but still a true work of art. Note to Prosaic People: If you don't have a philosophic bent, don't waste your time on this movie. You have to be at least somewhat idealistic and interested in the purpose of humanity, or this movie will just seem way too long and overly dramatic. Put another way, you'll either "get it" and love it, or miss what it's all about and hate it. Don't worry, you'll know in the first 10 minutes or so. Note to Old-School Readers: There are now two kinds of people in the world---those who read the books first, and those who watched the movie first. If I ever have kids, they're reading the books first, that's for darn sure.
Rating:
Summary: Sam Cable, what are you talking about?
Review: No movie protrayal can match a good book, but Jackson's attempt is the best ever effort in the history of movies. His team's enormous amount of research, attention to detail and love of the original literary work comes through. Yes, some plot lines are altered in minor ways to keep the off-screen characters part of the movie as it still has to serve an audience that didn't read the books, but overall anyone must admire their work. Yes, all of us Tolkien fanatics would love to see a movie of 139 hours in length that shows every scene and includes every line of dialog from the books, including Tom Bombadil and the everything else, exactly as written, but that obviously isn't going to happen. Sam - please read the books again as many of your review details are wrong. Gollum does have an internal struggle of Smeagol vs. Gollum, it's right in the book. It is pretty obvious in the movie that Sam is disgusted by Gollum and Frodo is more pitying him, same as the book. There is the conflict between Arwen and Elrond about her relationship with Aragorn and her struggle with remaining elfen and going West vs. staying with Aragorn. But it is subplot not detailed in the books as much, but Jackson is trying to flesh out characters. Aragorn does have doubts and struggles about coming out of hiding to rise to the thrown, he sets this up more in movie #2 for movie #3 but it is there in the books. Saruman does have control over nameless character "A" which nameless "B" breaks with a struggle and in the movie he has to make it obvious (over-do-it) what is going on or movie-goers would go "what the heck?" since they aren't reading the book. Saruman does rip down all the trees and into forest which P-O's the Ents, moving them into action, which WAS inspired by Tolkien's dislike of the industrial age (more to come in movie #3 I'm sure as in the books). There are warg-riding (i.e. big rats) orcs (even back in the Hobbit books) - READ THE BOOKS AGAIN!!! But some variations are needed for a movie version for the general public; I'll agree with you that all were not needed _FOR_US_, but there is the Joe Blow ticket buyer he is trying to entertain as well, to actually make money on this colossal project (which was completed, by the way, before movie #1 came out and was still a gamble then; hindsight only shows he could have gotten away with "less", perhaps). It's easy to tear down pick on every detail especially when movies are based on books. But this has to be (with the others in the series) some of the best movies ever made, and clearly the best attempt to mirror books on the screen; especially with the fantasy setting and special effects requirements. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is another great adaption, but it's not so hard to find a small Southern town and a guy named "Boo" as it is to create Balrogs, Orcs, Rings of Power and the Eye that Never Sleeps. Give him a break.
| 
