Rating: 
Summary: Great!!!
Review: I don't know how much better this movie could of been.
Rating:
Summary: The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
Review: "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" is a brilliant movie by director Peter Jackson! The special effects, art direction, and music(score) were all fantastic! This movie is filled with action, adventure, drama, a little romance, fantasy, and fun. Even though this movie did not perfectly follow the author J.R.R. Tolkiens "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy books, which I have read, that does not mean that this is a bad movie. I, for one, can actually understand why Peter Jackson, and his crew, cut, added, and changed some parts to it. The actors and actresses did a wonderful job on acting in this movie. They also did a wonderful job on acting like the characters from the books. There are a lot of fantasy characters brought to life, from the books, on this movie such as: many orcs, some trolls, some oliphaunts, the ring-wraiths, the Gollum creature, ents, elves, dwarves, wizards, and hobbits. Peter Jackson chose to direct this movie in New Zealand, which was the perfect country to direct "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy movies. This movie is the winner of two Oscars(Academy Awards)! Congratulations to director Peter Jackson and his crew! I highly recommend you see "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" movie in theaters and(or) buy it on VHS or DVD because it is a perfect five star and two thumbs up movie! And this movie is filled of true amazement! "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" is better than its prequal "The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring", and that movie was wonderful!
Rating: 
Summary: Difficult Quest that is well done
Review: Peter Jackson tackles a very difficult task, transforming a written saga onto the big screen. There are legions of LotR fans who will scrutinize every scene; yet, there are many in the audience who have never read the book(s). On the whole, PJ did very well. The acting was first-rate across the board. I must give my kudos to Andy Serkis (and the CGI crew) for bringing Gollum to life. This is the most impressing feat in the movie. Orlando Bloom has the best moves! The bow and arrow play and skate-boarding down the stairs of the Deeping Wall (Helm's Deep) are (enjoyably) outrageous! Elijah Woods wonderfully brings out a Frodo slowing losing control to the Ring, sliding into Darkness. Frodo is losing his innocence. It is great to see CGI used to complement the movie instead of dominating it. Incorporation of CGI with "real" actors grows more seamless. Isengard is truly barren and bereft of beauty; its army a dismaying sight as it sorties towards Rohan. Helm's Deep looks impregnable; a testament to the ancient power of Gondor. Osgiliath is a present testament to Gondor; a power swiftly fading into ruin. Remember, Edoras was not a CGI construct. The crew built a real Edoras. This testifies to how much PJ cared about making the movie. The musical score complemented the movie very nicely. IMHO, music is a very subjective thing. The Rohan thread (especially the hardanger) is very moving to me. I agree with the comment that the victory score from Helm's Deep (as Gandalf & Eomer charge into the Uruk-hai) is the most uplifting I have come across. However, the transformation of certain characters is the biggest disappointment in the movie. I agree with the criticisms of how the Ents were portrayed. Faramir should have remained the anti-thesis of his brother Boromir. What really makes me frown is the transformation of Theoden from the fearless king into a feckless shell. How can someone who was rescued from "dark dreams" by Gandalf continue to be so weak? I would much rather see Bernard Hill portray a fearless, aging king refusing to be "caught like a badger in a trap!" Happily, we begin to see the real Theoden towards the end of the battle. This point is personal because Theoden is my favorite character from the book. That aside, I still enjoyed the movie very much! Several friends who never read the book enjoyed it as well, so PJ seems to accomplish this important goal. I strongly recommend reading the book.
Rating:
Summary: The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers
Review: 5 out of 5 stars = "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers"... is agreat, yet spectacular, movie. It is filled with action, adventure, drama, fantasy, a little romance, and fun. Director Peter Jackson, and his crew, did a lot of work to make the author J.R.R. Tolkiens "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy books, which I have read, come to life on the big screen so you have to give them credit. Though this movie does not perfectly follow the books I can understand why they cut, added, and changed some parts to it. Books and movies are two totally different things and you cannot make a movie exactly like a book, the audience just would not go for it. The actors and actresses did a very splendid job on acting like the characters from the author J.R.R. Tolkiens "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy books. There are a lot of fantasy characters brought to life from the books in this movie such as: orcs, trolls, oliphaunts, ringwraiths, the horrible Gollum creature, ents, elves, dwarves, wizards, and hobbits. I am glad this movie was directed in New Zealand because the land mass there looks just like the land mass the author J.R.R. Tolkien described the land of Middle-Earth in "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy books. The special effects, art direction, and music score in this movie are very excellent. "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" is a great, yet spectacular, five star movie directed by Peter Jackson. It is better than its prequal "The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring", and that movie was wonderful. I highly recommend you see "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" movie in theaters and (or) buy it on VHS or DVD when it is released in stores. This fantastic movie is the winner of two Oscars (Academy Awards)! Congratulations to director Peter Jackson and his crew!
Rating:
Summary: "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers"
Review: "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" is a great, yet spectacular, movie. It is filled with action, adventure, drama, fantasy, a little romance, and fun. Director Peter Jackson, and his crew, did a lot of work to make the author J.R.R. Tolkiens "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy books, which I have read, come to life on the big screen so you have to give them credit. Though this movie does not perfectly follow the books I can understand why they cut, added, and changed some parts to it. Books and movies are two totally different things and you cannot make a movie exactly like a book, the audience just would not go for it. The actors and actresses did a very splendid job on acting like the characters from the author J.R.R. Tolkiens "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy books. There are a lot of fantasy characters brought to life from the books on this movie such as: orcs, trolls, oliphaunts, ringwraiths, the horrible Gollum creature, ents, elves, dwarves, wizards, and hobbits. I am glad this movie was directed in New Zealand because the land mass there looks just like the land mass the author J.R.R. Tolkien describes the land of Middle-Earth in "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy books. The special effects, art direction, and music score in this movie are very excellent. "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" is a great, yet spectacular, five star movie directed by Peter Jackson. It is better than its prequal "The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring", and that movie was wonderful. I highly recommend you see "The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers" movie in theaters and (or) buy it on VHS or DVD when it is released in stores. This fantastic movie is the winner of two Oscars (Academy Awards)! Congratulations to director Peter Jackson and his crew!
Rating:
Summary: A Sequel Of Titanic Proportions
Review: A masterpiece of cinema storytelling. The world has NEVER seen anything like The Two Towers. Told in three different tales, The Two Towers may at first confuse you, but you should and will WANT to see it a second time. It's far better on the second viewing, and you'll always catch things you never caught before. Gollum, being a completely CG character, will earn your pity and utter distaste. While Jar Jar may have hurt Star Wars forever, Gollum is unbelievable emotionally and visually. But above all, you will be sucked to the back of your seat for the climactic Battle at Helm's Deep. But a little bit of advice: See Fellowship of the Ring first, otherwise you will be lost for there is NO recap of the first chapter. Forget what you thought was impossible about Lord of the Rings and put your money to good use.
Rating:
Summary: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Review: This movie kicks ...! A wonderful, continuation in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, this movie was nearly as true to the book as is possible with this type of media. Save the Ents, the characters are true to Tolkien's ideal and contain such a richness it one is hardly able to call them "characters." Every detail was given forethought and later, perfected. While the length of the movie may initially dissuade some potential viewers, it doesn't lessen the enjoyment of this true epic in the least.
That said, I urge everyone who takes any pleasure in fantasy, myth, epics, literature, or science fiction to allow themselves to get caught up in the power and majesty of Tolkien's world which Mr. Jackson has so eloquently conveyed.
Finally, GOD BLESS Orlando Bloom! This movie is a MUST for any female....lithe and balletic, and beautiful, Bloom's Legolas is a definite must-see.
Rating:
Summary: Great, But A Couple Serious Flaws
Review: I'm not a purist (and yes, I love Peter Jackson's movies as much as anybody), but there are two MAJOR flaws in his adaptation of The Two Towers to the screen. They are not trivial or nit-picky, in fact one of these errors ruins the logic of the entire story: 1. Jackson should NEVER have had Frodo "offer" the ring to a nazgul. The entire point of the epic is that Sauron does NOT know the whereabouts of the ring, and does NOT know that it is in the possession of a hobbit nearing Mordor. For Frodo to show the ring to a nazgul (effectively the eyes and ears of Sauron) is probably the single biggest blunder Jackson could have possibly made. It boggles my mind that they put this scene in the film. I can even understand the change to Faramir's character, but not this. 2. Why does Jackson have Pippin (probably the most foolish character in the epic) "trick" Treebeard (one of the oldest and wisest characters in the epic) into going to Isengaard? Sorry, but the "purists" have a point when it comes to the change in Treebeard's character. Why bother with the whole idea of the ent-meeting in the first place if the outcome is pointless? And then there's the excruciating scene of Merry getting aggravated with Treebeard, as if he were an aggravated nurse trying to talk sense into a senile old man in an old folks' home. These changes have NOTHING to do with the necessities of altering a book to a film. Simply omitting the "Frodo offers the ring to the nazgul" scene would not have harmed the film in any way, and there's nothing inherently film-friendly about the idea of transforming Treebeard into an old fool. Aside from these two major gripes, yes, I loved the movie, and forgave all the other changes to the story (thus the 4 stars). Gollum is a miracle on screen. The visuals are breath taking, and the acting is first rate. Jackson really managed to capture an ATMOSPHERE in these films...which is what it is really all about in the end I guess. But I scratch my head at the thought of some of his plot decisions.
Rating: 
Summary: J.R.R Tolkien Would Not Have Been Pleased
Review: I respect opinions. I got 'em, you all got 'em. I did not care for this movie, many of you will care for it. That is fine and peachy. Opinions! ... It demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what Tolkien was attempting to achieve with the LOTR trilogy. So far, the movies have been created with the same misunderstanding. Tolkien wrote a myth-history of England because, through various historical circumstances, England lacked one. Admiring the Kalevala, Beowulf and other historical "sagas", Tolkien wrote the LOTR as a substitute for England's own myth-histories. Key to building this history are three things 1) sense of place, 2) sense of character and 3) sense of time [continuity]. Tolkien went to painstaking lengths to ensure that all of these were achieved. His narrative is truly a marvel of character development, pacing, interleaving of storylines and time scales, and language. To Tolkien that last is the most important: Tolkien was a philologist, and believed that a culture was defined by its language and that words had emotional vibrations associated with them, whether you understood them or not. That is a subject for another review. Book to movie translation aside for the moment, The Two Towers fails to communicate Tolkiens original intentions for all three of the above. The sense of place is gone: Jackson far too often dwells on close-ups, particularly in interiors. The beauty that Tolkien finds in many of his settings is all but gone in the movie; Meduseld is a dark, grimy stable robbed of any majesty. The majesty that is leeched from Tolkien's places is also leeched from his characters. The sense of character that Tolkien excels out is non-existent in these movies, with Legolas and Gandalf the only two characters still left with a portion of the grace Toklien gifted them (and for that I applaud the actors, not Jackson). Faramir is not Tolkien's Faramir, Treebeard bears no resemblance to Tolkien's Ent, and Theoden is practically detestable, a whiny and sniveling coward. Third, sense of time. The movie is a narrative mess. Granted, there is much to include, much to cut. The book is far too long to translate word for word onto the screen. But we still find hackneyed scenes written in: the Warg battle is a trite, narrative-flow killing mess. The whole romantic interlude flashback/flash forward is a heavy handed and interruptive attempt to set-up a plot line not at all essential to the story at hand (hint: Tolkien left it out, leaving it for the appendices). We never get the sense of time and distance that Tolkien pulls off so adeptly. As for translating books to scripts to screen. To the defenders of the Two Towers: you are right, it is an extremely difficult undertaking. But I will say this again: there are certain things in the source material that MUST be preserved. That is why it is the source material, and that is why the name of the book is riding on the opening credits. Consideration must be payed to the source material, especially when it is a 50 year old book that has been studied from stem to stern and rightly considered the most influential book of the century. Consideration must be paid to the fact that Tolkien was an accomplished writer and perfectionist, and intended every single line and plot point to be exactly as he wrote it. The success of his books are evidence enough that he knew what he was doing. To honor the man, you must honor his material, and Jackson et. al. fail so completely, I would say it borders on mockery (albeit non-intentional). Perhaps they are unable to understand Tolkien, ..., perhaps too many cooks, etc etc etc. ... It could be strongly argued that the Two Towers is that movie: in name only does this movie allude to the Two Towers I know, and is an affront to Tolkien's (Tolkien's mind you, not mine) original vision. If Tolkien were alive, I am quite certain that these movies would not have been made.
Rating:
Summary: Aragorn: "Open war is upon you..."
Review: "The Two Towers" is a direct sequel to "The Fellowship of the Ring" without any prologue, flashback or "Previously on" footage. It opens up with an aerial view of the Misty Mountains (the same footage that was used when Gandalf fled from Orthanc on the giant eagle). This confused me at first. "What, they chose to go back into the mountains to look for Gandalf's hat"? "The Two Towers" is nowhere near as good as "The Fellowship of the Ring" and it is also very different from the book, but it's still a great movie. Peter Jackson wanted a trilogy, no actually one single movie broken into three, but a trilogy nonetheless (no one would be able to watch a movie that was 9 hours long). Peter also wanted each movie to be different from the others. So, "The Fellowship of the King" was a kind of introduction into everything. You got to see lots of people, races, monsters, locations and so on and so on. "The Two Towers" was the part where you got to see the Power of the ring, how it could turn people (Saruman) evil and what it was capable of bringing forth (the battle of Helms Deep). "The Two Towers" is also the movie of character development for all of the Fellowship members besides Frodo (he was the centre of "The Fellowship of the Ring") and Boromir (well, he's dead). Let's just hope that "The Return of the King" is better than both "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers" and that it'll win the Oscar for "Best picture 2003". Now, as for the changes in the movie. Some were for the better, others for the worse, at least for those who have read the books. Being someone who hasn't read the books, I can still say that "The Two Towers" is a great movie, in the sense of that it's a movie based loosely on a book. Also, in "The Fellowship of the Ring", the music made a big difference. For example, the drama of Gandalf's "death" combined with the last part of "The Bridge of Khazam-Dûm" made me cry... several times. However, in "The Two Towers", most of the songs, much like in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secret" are just variations and continuations of the songs of "The Fellowship of the Ring". All in all, "The Two Towers" is a great movie that's worth seeing. I camped out in the Swedish winter cold for 3 days for tickets to the 00.01 premiere and I wasn't disappointed.
|
