Rating: 
Summary: Worthy of Oscar Consideration
Review: Having just watched Lord of The Rings, The Two Towers, I can say with all candor that the movie is a fine successor to The Fellowship of The Ring. This movie is bigger and bolder, with an emphasis on action. The battle scenes are beautifully filmed, and the special effects remarkable. I would have liked to see some of the characters fleshed out a little more, but overall this is grand entertainment, and well worth the price of admission. Kudos to Peter Jackson and the cast for bringing Tolkien's vision to life on the big screen.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent rendition of an epic tale!
Review: The excitement in the air at 12:01 A.M., December 18, 2002 was rewarded with the best movie I have ever watched. I know that sounds a little far-fetched, but indeed, the movie at hand, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, by far surpassed its predecessor, The Fellowship of the Ring, until this time my favorite movie.For many reasons was this sequel excellent, but it comes down to three main things:
1) It is based on the excellent work of J.R.R. Tolkien
2) It expresses the themes of the book very well.
3) It is more open, in my opinion, for the public. 1) Being hailed as the best book of the 20th Century, The Lord of the Rings has been often cited as the beginning of modern fantasy. Bringing its readers into a world which is, at the same time, fantastic and realistic, the story expresses themes of hope and faith as well as some really good characters. Thus, since the film is well-adapted to match the book in many ways (making a few adaptations to shorten the length as well as make the story flow better on the screen), it is excellent just as the book itself is excellent. 2) The themes of both hope (and hopelessness at times) are expressed well in this movie. Also, through cunning development of Gollum, the theme that good can prevail within a (seemingly) completely corrupt individual is expressly shown. 3) In my opinion, The Two Towers is more accessible to the public. Once you get past all the names in the movie, the plot is relatively easy to follow even if you have not read the books. However, the thing that lightens the mood, which is often needed for viewers who are not "hard-core" fantasy/Tolkien fans is the comic relief that is often inserted. The movie is often very dark, so the film is at some times extremely dreary. However, throughout the movie, there are other areas of light humor which help lighten the mood which often helps non-fanatics. So in the end, The Two Towers gets 5 out of 5. I HIGHLY suggest seeing this movie!
Rating:
Summary: I HAVE SEEN IT! I HAVE SEEN IT!
Review: Yes! I have finally seen it and oh my!! It's just what I hoped for and even better than I expected! It's not as "flashy" (in lack of a better word) as fellowship. It's not so much "right in your face cool", but it's more serious. More adult. And that's a good thing. I loved fellowship, gave it 5 stars, and this one is definetly just as good. It's actually hard to say that towers is better than fellowship because it's just a continuing story. We got thrown in to the story like we never left our seats after fellowship. And it's just as long as fellowship! Gollum is wonderful, Treebeard is wonderful, and the battle of Helm's Deep is...well...you know... Arwen and Galadriel have just little cameos. That's a good thing too because I was worried about how much they would change the story just to let those to actresses have bigger parts. We don't see Merry and Pippin much, but Gimli is the comic break this time around. And oh my is he funny!! Call me stupid, you shouldn't laugh when the battle of Helm's Deep is going on, but Gimli made me! See this little movie! NOW!
Rating:
Summary: The Two Towers - reviewed by a Tolkien zealot
Review: The Fellowship of the Ring was a near perfect adaptation of Tolkien's novel (in spirit more than in its structure), the first volume in The Lord of the Rings "trilogy" (though Tolkien himself designed it as one long book, but that's neither here nor there where the movies are concerned). Peter Jackson brought Middle-Earth to life, and maintained the emotional content of Tolkien's work as well as the adventure and spectacle. With The Two Towers, though, Peter Jackson is less successful on all grounds. The movie is neither as true to its written counterpart as the previous film, nor does it leave a sparkling aftertaste when the credits roll. For some reason, Peter Jackson decided to cut the content of The Two Towers in half for his film adaptation, only to attach it next year to the beginning of The Return of the King. For example, if you're an avid fan of Tolkien (and by God you should be!), you'll notice that Shelob is absent in film two, and so are many other events. Now, that's not to say they got the ole Glorfindel axe -not at all. Shelob will appear in film three, and so will all of the other important events that got lopped out of The Two Towers. In Mr. Jackson's defense, I must add that the structure of his film would make another climax such as Shelob's a little too much to handle - I mean, after all, we've already been through Helm's Deep in all its glory. However, if Jackson had restructured his screenplay, it could have played out more like Tolkien's novel - and been the better for it... and I'm not speaking strictly as a Tolkien zealot here either. Despite the film's virtual three hours of running time, Jackson manages to deliver an ending that feels somehow rushed. It is certainly not a satisfactory conclusion that will leave you beaming. Instead, you'll be groaning and whining, "That's it? Another year?" I know that a cliffhanger was something of a given, but The Two Towers, as adapted by Jackson, doesn't complete a satisfying story arch the way he managed with The Fellowship of the Ring (and in flying colors, I hasten to add!). It can't help but be a little disappointing given this. I really wish Jackson hadn't made his fateful decision to saw The Two Towers down the middle. Does this mean I'm not a fan of The Two Towers? Not by a long shot - I'm only saying that the The Fellowship of the Ring is more gratifying as a whole, and that it's a tough act to follow. My list of praises for The Two Towers is lengthy indeed! To begin with, Gollum is, without question, exactly how he should be. Not only does Gollum seem very real and alive (he's computer-generated), but his behavior is dead on. Gollum is as tragic in the film as he is on the written page, and the behind-the-FX performance is haunting and worthy of limitless honor. Just looking at Gollum evokes feelings of pity for the poor lost soul. All of the performances in The Two Towers are amazing, though. The characterizations are also much nearer to Tolkien's. Gimli was mere comic relief in film 1, for example, but he shines in film 2 - and, yes, he's still very funny too, but it all feels a little more appropriate. Add to this some amazing action segments, some dazzling visual effects (much better than the lacking effects in part 1), and sometimes verbatim dialogue from Tolkien himself, and you have a movie that is exciting and dramatic both at once (just like The Lord of the Rings should be, after all!). If only the film had adhered to Tolkien's book as strictly near the end as it did at the outset... Alas! The first portion of The Two Towers is a Ringer dream come true. I dare say, in fact, that the first hour of film 2 is even more true to its source material than the first hour of film 1. This was a bit misleading, because, soon enough, Jackson's liberties begin to creep in - and they're not all bad, nor are they far from the Tolkien spirit. Still, there are a few inexcusable offenses. The first, and most severe, is the film's structure, as I've mentioned, which makes a mess of what happens in which installment of the tale. The second major offense comes in the form of the elves at Helm's Deep - and I'm not moaning just because there at elves at Helm's Deep either. What I really have a problem with is Jackson's callous slaying of a Tolkien character who, however unimportant in the grand scheme of things, did not actually die in the novels. Some minor quibbles include Gandalf's lack of screen time despite his "resurrection," and the Merry and Pippin moments which seem to be more of an afterthought than anything else. They were not given the proper amount of attention by the filmmakers, who preferred instead to throw a lot of unimportant Arwen sequences our way. All in all, The Two Towers is no Fellowship of the Ring, but what it does well, it does exceedingly well. It just feels too much like a story that was cut in half - which, essentially, is exactly what it is. As a Tolkien fanatic as well as an avid moviegoer, I object to this. Still, when all three films are completed, none of these niggles will seem as troublesome. It's the desire for more that lead to much of my disappointment in the conclusion, after all.
Rating:
Summary: EXPECTATIONS ARE HIGH & IM SURE THEY'LL GO BEYOND BEING MET
Review: After seeing The Fellowship of the Ring, as I said in my title my expectations are high and I feel very, very certain I will be more than satisfied after I see it. I'm rating this before I've seen it because of course I'm going to LOVE it! From the reviews I've heard it sounds really good and the acting is excellent. The only part I'm concerned about is not going by the book, but all the reviews I've read said it will be OK that way. I think I'm most anticipating seeing Gollum/Smeagol and the battle. Anyone who is just thinking about seeing The Two Towers I HIGHLY recommend you go see it. (I'm not 12 but I don't feel like giving my email address away) I'm going to be really suprised if someone sees it and says it was no good. I think anyone who says that has no sense and should have more appreciation for movies that truly good. I'm definitely going to go see it (DUH!) and I'm dissapointed I have to wait another year to see The Return of The King. I think The Lord of the Rings should DEFINITELY win more Oscars this year and I was really dissapointed last year, ESPECIALLY about Ian McKellan. I think after The Return of the King comes out, someone should make The Hobbit ;-) Anyway, that remains to be seen, but I think this movie will be really good!
Rating:
Summary: Review for Two Towers
Review: Even though this movie has not been released yet I am giving it five stars based on the preview I have seen. The story is a continuation of the first movie from when Frodo and Sam left the group to destroy the ring on their own. I think that in this movie there will be more of an emphasis on some of the major characters as well as more fighting and action scenes. It will be interesting to see how the plot develops more in this movie and I can't wait until it is released. I think that the Two Towers will be much better than the first one because it will have better action and an emphasis on character development. If you saw the first one and liked it, I highly recommend that you watch the Two Towers.
Rating:
Summary: Of Course It's Gonna Be Good!!!
Review: The Two Towers is going to be awesome; no doubt!!!
Why? Well here are a few reasons from the Ragin' Cajun herself: 1) Legolas is in it!
2) The characters don't change their style, looks, or behavior because TTT was shot right after FOTR!
3) All three movies were shot very true to the book.
4) And finally, LEGOLAS IS IN IT!!! :-) December 18th! Go out and see it! ;-)
Rating:
Summary: BETTER than the first?
Review: After seing a trailer for The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (which I am basing my review on; this trailer was better than the Fellowship's trailer), I was impressed. It seems to still look cutting-edge visually. I just cannot wait until December. I have already bought my tickets. I'll just watch the Fellowship's extended version on dvd until then to keep myself entertaines. I have already read over the Two Towers twice. Plus with essentially the same cast and production crew, I don't know how this could not be awesome. I've already read the script, and it looks great. So wheres the difference between LOTR 1 and 2? Well, freom the preview and the script and book, there will be even more people, effects, sets. There is very little of Frodo, but some new characters, like Theoden, Eomer, Faramir, and Wormtongue (towards the end). At the beginning, the movie follows Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas as they hunt the orcs that captured Merry and Pippin, then follows them into the beginnig of the War of the Ring. The second half follows Frodo and Sam as they make their way towards Mordor. I'm reading a lot of reviews saying things like "Where's Frodo?" You just wait and see. Feel free to leave a helpful/not helpful feedback to my review. Thank you for reading, and God Bless America!
Rating:
Summary: Two Towers- How (Helm's) deep is your love? ( for lotr)
Review: The fellowship was superb.
To all the pods that had something to say about the ending I got one word for you: TRILOGY.
The Towers will be even better as story progresses and the rythem really picks up.
Anyone who critisizes the movies can try and imagine of how he would make this one better- NOT!
I watched the fellowship on Christmas day 2001 at Denver Colorado-it was a beautiful day and a great movie!
Michael the bearer of one of the seven rings.
Rating:
Summary: It's Gotta Be Good...
Review: For these reasons. 1) No, I don't believe that Fellowship was a fluke. Two Towers and Return of the KIng will likely be just as good for this reason. These films were shot in succession. That means that most of the actors styles will not change, and the actors don't look different and act in other ways. 2) Action and Story. The fellowship, while still action packed, was more story oriented and less action (even more so in the novel). The Two Towers has tons more action, along with a great story to boot. The battle at Helms Deep will be monumental for the silver screen (it will put most past epic battle sequences to shame, with the exception of Braveheart and a few others). And for the mushy folk (and u few sentimental guys), the love story between Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Arwen (Liv Tyler)is still here (though not in the book, Peter Jackson's own addition). Don't expect to be led into the story though. It will jump right in, with no recap of the last movie. Rent it again if you have to. 3)Three men. Viggo Mortenson, Ian McKellen, and Elijah Wood. These three stars are a driving force in these movies. They give depth and meaning to these characters, that you can't help but be captivated when they're on the screen. Not to mention Christopher Lee, who is absolutely menacing as Sauruman, and is an amazing bad guy. 4) Those special effects. Who wasn't terrified by those hideous Urak-Hai (however you spell them). Now we have the CG created creatures Gollum, and Treebeard, both of whom play large roles in this movie. These special effects will make you believe that everything goin on on the screen has actually happened. So you've got all these great resons, so why shouldn't it be good. Of course, I could be wrong, but of course Tiger Woods could never win another tournament the rest of his life. Wht do you think?
|
