Rating: 
Summary: LOTR : The two towers
Review: The two towers is yet again another 'good' film of the LOTR trilogy, I say 'good' as to really grasp any of the films intricacies you *need* to have seen 'The fellowship of the ring' prior to watching it. Saying that, however, I do not wish to demene the film as a whole, it is a 'good', 'acceptable', *watchable* film, with many twists, a couple turns and a good ol' fight scene. Though, it would be preferable to watch all three at once (imagine it... 3hrs per film, x3 films, you have a whole week-end of fantasy right there), for now just the two, or even just the one will do.But in all honesty, if you havent seen the film yet, dont buy the DVD. You cant simply purchase DVD's / Videos merely on the merit of the reviewers or trailers. If you can, while you can, go to your local cinema and experience LOTR : TTT (yes, three T's!) in full on surround-sound widescreen action. Once you have, you can get yourself the DVD which will (in most likelyness) also give you the oportunity to get the 'cinema feel', but at home (if you have a widescreen tv, and a surround sound system, all the better). Then again, if you've already seen the film then... BUY IT. dont ask why, you know why. -Liquid K9
Rating:
Summary: I'm not blinded by the books! Let the movie shine!
Review: First off, to all you Tolkien snobs saying "Oh no! Faramir's character was slaughtered!" and "Oh the Ents didn't get enough screen developement!" I say, don't look a gift horse in the mouth! Come on! The average person watching the movies hasn't read the books, and Peter Jackson must cater to this. The movie is already 3 hours long, and to bow to the fans every desire would be suicide.
A decent amount of fans are overlooking the fact that, these movies even exist to complain about in the first place. The computer effects are some of the best I've seen. Gollum is all CGI and I've never seen such a real CGI character! He's by far the star of the film. And another great thing about the CGI, is that Peter Jackson doesn't rely on it. It's there to bring Tolkien's world to life, but he makes his foundation on acting! The actors are superb. Frodo is starting to become distant as the ring dessimates him. Sam is getting more worried by the day. Aragorn is starting to show the stress of the quest, Gandalf is back but now distant, he doesn't even remember his name! Merry and Pippen become more entrenched with the battle for Middle Earth, as they urge the Ents into battle. Gimli and Legolas are a bit lacking in their supposed friendship, but it's easily overlooked as the battle for Helm's Deep encompasses them.
This film is damn good. All I'm hearing from Tolkien purists is little nit picky things about the characters. What I don't see, is them having their eyes wide open enjoying it for what it is! It's an awe inspiring film. Full of laughter, passion, war, hope, or even a lack of hope. These characters have chemistry, unlike Star Wars: Episode I or II, where the characters feel dull and inconsiderate of others... a lot like plastic figurines. Lord of the Rings; however, brings a full range of emotion to the silver screen. Peter Jackson has done a great job melding all three subplots in one seamless 3 hour movie.
For all the moaning and griping I hear, I do feel sorry for all the whiny Tolkien fans, because these films are the best they're going to get. A huge budget, a great cast of characters, and a really good story that takes place over three films. It's too bad all the fans (that don't realize this) can enjoy it for what it is! And that being, their only chance at a good LOTR movie.
Rating: 
Summary: A good film, but not for Tolkien purists
Review: Whatever Tolkien readers may think of "The Two Towers," they have to agree that the film version is stunning in its action, characters, dialogue and pace. Indeed, for a three hour movie you never feel bogged down at any one point. Peter Jackson continues his spectacular vision of Middle Earth and its intriguing folk battling against the forces of evil. What few quibbles I have do not detract from a well-acted story - although as a Tolkien purist it irked me to see how Jackson and his scriptwriters needlessly revised certain plot elements and details.
Unlike "The Fellowship of the Ring," the second book unravels as a whirlwind of action, intrigue and political maneuvering. "The Two Towers" forsakes the linear aspect of the first book, and Tolkien chose to present the parallel action (Frodo going to Mordor/the struggle of Men vs. Saruman) as two separate parts. For film purposes, it's understandable that Jackson chose to mix it up a bit. The effect is interesting because the scenes cut from one part to another. People familiar with the story will have no trouble sorting out what's going on - though I wonder about the unfamiliar moviegoer. Well, the books are available. Perhaps the makers of the film realized that the characters in the second book were too many for a coherent story; that would explain some of the re-arrangement of who-did-what. Some of the revisions are merely suspense devices (Aragorn plunging over a cliff during the skirmish with the evil Wargs - not in the book), while other things were enlargements of established subplots (Aragorn's love for Arwen is tested by Eowyn, a new character from Rohan). Arwen's role is hotly debated by Tolkien lovers. I say, enough about her already. We get it! The interludes with Elrond, Galadriel and Arwen could have been eliminated or truncated to help flesh out some of the rest of the story. The Elves do not have a huge role in the second book, though their race is a constant presence in Middle Earth. Tolkien was focusing on the role of Men: Rohan and later, Gondor. One very painful deviation from the book comes when Faramir, a captain of soldiers patrolling the borderlands between Gondor and Mordor, captures Frodo, Sam, and the snivelling Gollum. In the book, Faramir learns what Frodo's quest is, and decides to let the hobbits go their way. In the film, Faramir forcibly escorts Frodo to Osgiliath, an outpost of Gondor now beleaguered by Sauron's Orcs. Only after Sam lectures Faramir about the peril of the Ring and Frodo's burden does the man let them go. I took issue with this portrayal of Faramir because as Tolkien wrote it, Faramir was wiser than his brother Boromir (who tried to take the Ring for himself and Gondor), and rather than repeat the mistakes of other would-be Ring owners, Faramir shows the sort of wisdom only Gandalf, Elrond and Aragorn have, though he was not part of the fellowship. Also questionable were the parts of Merry and Pippin after they escaped the Orcs and wandered into Fangorn Forest. After meeting Treebeard the Ent, they persuade him to unleash the fury of the Ents upon Isengard. In the book, the Ents spend a long time deciding to attack Saruman's stronghold, but their decision to act comes from years of enduring the degradations of Saruman's Orcs. Merry and Pippin, although essential to the story, serve mostly as witnesses to events. The crux of their involvement is passed over: Merry becomes a soldier of Rohan, while Pippin goes to the service of Gondor (and getting a peek at Saruman's palantir, after the Ents destroy Isengard). All this is saved, no doubt, for the third movie. But it does seem like the hobbits' actions are revised because of this plot-editing. Another quibble is the situation in Rohan. Yes, Theoden was under Wormtongue's control, and his nephew Eomer was an outcast as a result, but in the book, Eomer joins his uncle at Helm's Deep. The riders that Gandalf arrives with at the last minute belong to a fellow named Erkenbrand (but for clarity's sake, this has all been revised). Also, the Elves never joined in the fighting (poor Haldir! He tramps all the way from Lorien to get an Orc axe in the back), but it serves as a useful "unifying" device. Oh well. I guess the film is still great to watch, but one thing keeps bothering me: with all the congratulatory atmosphere around Peter Jackson & Co., I get the sense that they, and not the readers (or Tolkien himself) "own" the story, to do with as they see fit. In all the companion books I read, the makers of these films kept the book around as the "bible" for making the story come alive on screen. The problem I have with how they interpreted some parts of the books is that in today's image-saturated world, the last word is had by the film and not by the book that inspired it. I think that the "Lord of the Rings" films are without question the best fantasy films to come about in a while. Kudos to Peter Jackson and the magnificent actors and crew who put it all together. I just didn't think they needed to make so many changes.
Rating:
Summary: WOW! GREAT MOVIE!
Review: I saw this movie twice already. I LOVED it. I have the soundtrack. That's good too. All of this movie is great! But go see the fist one first. So you can understand this movie better. Then read the book. This is the best movie I've ever seen because of 7 reasons: 1. best director: Peter Jackson
2. best costumes
3. best acting
4. best picture
5. best song: "Gollum's Song"
6. best creatures
7. best battle scenes Every thing is great! See ya. Got to go see it again. Bye! Rated: PG-13 for Epic Battle Sequences and Some Scay Images. Running Time: 210 Minutes. (Counting Commercials and Credits)
Rating:
Summary: see this movie
Review: Just as good as the first one. Definitely worth seeing. Like everyone's been saying, it's the middle segment of a trilogy so it has no definite beginning or end, but it's still a captivating story and a well-done movie. Wonderful.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Movie!
Review: The Lord Of The Rings : The Two Towers is an awsome movie! It is better than The Fellowship Of The Ring. The Lord Of The Rings is packed with a lot of adventure , action , and fantasy. The orcs , trolls , the evil Gollum creature , oliphaunts , ents , and ringwraiths looked very realistic. The Lord Of The Rings The Two Towers deserve a good five stars!
Rating:
Summary: Towering Achievement
Review: Funny thing about how movies affect people differently. I'm the only member of my family never to have read the Tolkien books. When I saw "Fellowship of the Rings", I was unmoved and bored, but my family just raved about it, and so did everyone else: my negative review was blasted at 64 disagreeing! But this time, I was completely into and greatly enjoyed "The Two Towers". Lights go up, and my brothers are ticked off by the movie because it departs from the book, evidently. Go figure! Yes, "The Two Towers" is a solid work that even someone unconversant with the original trilogy can follow. I see some reviewers found it harder to trace than "FofTR", but as a veteran of 1970s disaster movies like "Towering Inferno" where action cuts from group to group, I was perfectly able to go from subplot to subplot. The animation of the Gollom character is a tour de force, the battle scenes are riveting. Everything is working excellently in this epic. Point that kind of got me, though: Evil Christopher Lee has been able to possess some king long distance and create all these monsters and such. An omnipotent kind of fellow, an evil wizard. But when the Ents come and destroy his environs, his only response is to look out the window? He doesn't even say anything? I thought that was a little Too Passive. He needs to get in touch with his anger. Still and all, "Two Towers" stands way above the latest Star Wars movie, and in my opinion, above "Fellowship of the Ring".
Rating:
Summary: Amazing and beautiful storytelling
Review: This second installment of the Lord of the Ring series is simply amazing. The special effects will leave you breathless without sacrificing the story. The characters seem real in a story that could easily have been lost in special effects like Mr. George Lucas' Star War movies.
Rating:
Summary: See this if you liked the first movie
Review: "The Two Towers" leaves off exactly where "The Fellowship of the Ring" ended. Sam and Frodo have embarked on their journey to Morden alone. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolis have gone in search of the kidnapped Hobbits, Merry and Pippin. And Merry and Pippin are being transported on the backs of marauding Orcs. Director Peter Jackson throws the audience headfirst into each of these plots, with the only nod to the twelve month gap between theatrical releases being a recap of Gandolf's fall into the abyss. As Middle Earth tries to defend against Sauruman's enormous military conjuring, the ring and Frodo's responsibility to destroy it seem almost irrelevant since the world must first survive the onslaught of military evil. Is the movie good? Yes, very. Is it better than the first? It depends on what kind of movie you like. The first is an adventure/friendship movie while the second is more of a war movie, with everything leading up to an enormous battle scene. I found "The Two Towers" to have less drive and cohesion than the first, since the three plot lines remain separate and distinct. Jackson spends too much time showing us Merry and Pippin as they walk around with an Ent; in the interest of the dramatic medium, this should have been pared down, especially since these two Hobbits are not driving forces. Still, the acting is good (Mortenson as Aragorn is even more charismatic than he was in the first),and the story line is riveting. As with the first, the cinematography is breathless. The creation of Gollum, the poor tortured soul who is consumed for his need for "my precious" is simply brilliant. Wait until you see the wizardry of Gollum's computer generation! He is reminiscent of Yoda - but only if you could imagine Yoda as anguished, malnourished, mentally unstable, and consumed by the lure of the dark force. If you saw "The Fellowship of the Ring" and liked it, you won't want to miss "The Two Towers." If you didn't understand what the fuss was the first time around, you won't find enough to hold your interest in the second installment.
Rating:
Summary: Equal; not better
Review: First, let me start by saying that this is a great film and I had no problem in giving it 5 stars. The action sequences are amazing and Gollum is just... well, I can't describe how good he is. You'll have to see it to understand. However, I would certainly NOT say that this is better than 'Fellowship.' The story is not, in my opinion, quite as exciting and I miss the more intimate, smaller battles. Overall, this, like the book, is a great companion to FOTR. It is not better, nor worse it. Great movie!
|
