Rating: 
Summary: Epic!
Review: The Two Towers is the second part of Peter Jackson's trilogy based on JRR Tolkien's epic fantasy masterpiece, the Lord of the Rings.The Fellowship of the Ring has just been broken and our heroes are now all heading in different directions, all following their own paths. Merry and Pippin have just been captured by a horde of Saruman's foul Huruk-Haï who, following the sorcerer's orders, are taking them to his tower of Isengard, and Aragorn the Heir of Gondor, Legolas the Elf and Gimli the Dwarf are running to their rescue across the plains of Rohan, land of the Rohirim horsemasters. Taking the advantage of a clash between the orcs and a band of Rohirim, the hobbits manage to escape into Fangorn, the old forest, home of the legendary Ents. There they'll meet an old acquaintance. Meanwhile Frodo, the Ring-bearer, and his friend Sam are on their way to Mordor. It won't be long until they become lost, nor before they realize they're not alone. Gollum, the filthy creature who once possessed the One Ring, has been following them all along. They capture him, but soon Frodon takes pity and decides to release him in exchange for Gollum's word that he'll guide them to Mordor. Once again, Peter Jackson managed to bring to screen the enchanting spirit of JJR Tolkien's complex novels. I personally liked Gollum's character a lot, as well as admired the creature's beautiful computer graphics animation. And the Battle of Helm's Deep, the terrible final conflagration between Théoden's people and Saruman's army of ten thousand orcs, is just as formidable. I'll have to read these books again!
Rating:
Summary: Stupendous!
Review: "They don't make movies like that any more." This is reference to Cecil B. DeMille's spectacular remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. I mention one of the few universally acclaimed film epics of all time because with THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS,
Director Peter Jackson has staked unchallengable claim to motion picture immortality. Visually the movie is staggering in technological excellence. It seamlessly combinines sweeping photographic grandeur with superlative integration of CGI and modelwork(Claymation & Superdynamation)that humbles even the work
of IL&M, and would have made Ray HarryHausen proud. Thematically, the story is truly grand and has raised film making--again--to the level of Mythological. Those familiar with Tolkien's literary epic--with rare exception--have been astounded by this director's monumental artistry in cinematically incarnating one of the greatest "stories" ever written.The cast(humans;creatures; monsters;)is brilliantly essayed.(Sean Astin deserves particular recognition as Frodo's "guardian" friend, SAMWISE). The complex plotting is clearly delineated;and ACTION(quest development;battles; epic romance interludes)ranges from apocalyptic to majestic. THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS magnificently continues what was begun in THE FELLOWSHIP of THE RING. Peter Jackson has created a unique work of film making that is both artistically wonderous and breath taking entertainment.It is a stupendous achievement.(10 Stars)
Rating:
Summary: I loved It!
Review: This is a very good movie. The story is great (and the movie is better than most at following the book). The movie also has amazing special effects. You can really care about these people.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Continuation of LoTR Trilogy!!
Review: Worried about some director ruining the first film by creating a so-so sequel? Not Peter Jackson. Of course, when you base your movies on the Lord of the Rings epic by JRR Tolkien, you just can't mess it up. Like the book, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers gets even more involved and more adventurous than Fellowship, though it moves along a little slower. Gollum makes a huge presence, new characters are introduced, and battles are a-blazing. This film is darker than the first, and a little creepier. I was worried about how they would pull off the Ents, but I was, as usual, amazed with them.The movie ends with the Battle of Helm's Deep and Gollum swearing the wrath of Shelob on Frodo and Sam, which gets you REALLY ready for the final installment, LoTR: The Return of the King. The finale of Two Towers is worth a little bit slower movie, but all of the detail, excitement, and plot development is there in full battle armor. Wonderful experience!!
Rating:
Summary: Undescribable
Review: This movie was awesome, to say the least.
Director Peter Jackson took Tolkiens already exciting story and made it into the best movie I've ever seen. The plot was exciting and intriguing, leaving me counting the days till The Return of The King comes out.
Several people I saw the movie with complained that the details were confusing, but it's actually alot simpler than it seems. Good vs. Evil is the basic rule. Others complained about details left out from the book, and other details that were added. It seemed to me that the director did the best he could to stay with the book in the 3 hours he was given (you could take a week for each movie) and the few things he changed only made the plot more understandable.
I can't think of anything to complain about, besides afew moments of talking trees (which I found kinda boring) and a cheesy love story. Overall the movie was great, and I would see it for the special effects alone. I recomend it to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as Fellowship
Review: My god, TTT is a good movie, but it just seemed to me that the screenwriters were having a competition over who wrote the exact opposite of the book the most times into the script. Faramir taking the hobbits to Gondor? The Ents not wanting to help after Entmoot?? Aragorn nearly dying??? Theoden leading Edoras people...to Helm's Deep???? The Elves turning up to help? What?! Gimli son of Gloin gets turned into a comedy character, and Arwen, Elrond and even the Wargs get precious screen time when they should never even be there. Finally Gollum gets overfeatured and Helm's Deep is just too damn long. Incredibly, none of the climaxes of the book are in the movie either: Saruman is not thrown off by Gandalf and the hobbits do not get to Cirith Ungol and Shelob. Still, I find the movie worthwhile because of: Gandalf fight with the Balrog (AWESOME sequence)
Treebeard, Fangorn, Ents and Helm's Deep itself (very well done)
Eowyn (beautiful and graceful)
Good movie is better than no movie. But on the basis of it I just wonder what shall we expect of "Return of the King"? Will Peter Jackson freely rewrite it too?
Rating:
Summary: Awesome to Behold
Review: If you have the good fortune (which I did not) of seeing "The Two Towers" in a theater that doesn't contain a man coughing his brains out with an obvious case of neo-Bubonic Plague strain, then you, my friend, are in for treat. "The Two Towers" not only lives up to the grandeur and unmatched spectacle of "The Fellowship of the Ring," it surpasses it with a greater focus on character and a subdued (but still prominent) focus on exposition. It is also obvious now, when all is said and done, that Peter Jackson's trilogy will be considered the greatest achievement in the history of cinematic fantasy. Critics that bash it now as too long or for fantasy geeks only will have to eat crow when these movies are still beloved decades from now. How did Jackson do it? How did he make a film like "The Two Towers," one that cost over $100 million to make and yet still feels entirely handmade? How did he keep a story compelling that should have run out of gas long ago? However he did it (one assumes it involved lots of late hours and an inordinate amount of help), you the viewer get the end product, and what a sight it is to see. "Two Towers" avoids the plodding narrative of "Fellowship" by breaking up its main characters into groups. With three main storylines going on at once, Jackson alternates between subplots so that the story never grows too stale. It also has a stronger grip on characters, showing them in moments other than fighting or running away, and that actually helps the film breeze by (3 hours have never passed so quickly, unless you slept through Dances with Wolves). And you never feel like you see the same thing twice during "Towers." There are always new things to see, new places to go, or new homages to be alert for (in particular one to "The Wizard of Oz" at the gates of Mordor). Of special note is Gollum, the CGI creature who never feels forced into the picture. He's a real character, and at no point does he just feel like a cartoon stuck in a live action flick. Are there problems with "Towers"? Sure. The bad guys have terrible aim and the good guys, natch, do not. There's so much latent homoerotism between Frodo and Sam you half expect them to start kissing halfway in. And Jon Rhys-Davies jokes are a little corny, but welcome relief in a movie this intense. There's also not enough of the prominent villains (Christopher Lee's Saruman or the evil Sauron). Still, movies don't get much better than this, and "Towers" seems to only justify Peter Jackson's growing legacy. A triumph.
Rating: 
Summary: Good movie, not so good adaptation **spoiler**
Review: When I saw The Fellowship of the Ring I left the theatre feeling confused. I had been assured by several self-proclaimed "Ring Fanatics" that it was a close adaptation to the book. If any of those people try to tell me that with The Two Towers I'm afraid I will have to think that they are liars or idiots. Very little of the book is left. I spent most of the movie trying to figure out what the creator's were attempting to say. There must be some sort of statement they want to proclaim that they are using Tolkien's work for, or should I say, abusing. Why didn't they just make up their own story, I wonder. Oh, yeah, they are making millions by distorting these works. My main issue lies with the destruction of characters. I understand perfectly that you can't fit these books all into 9 hrs of film. But that doesn't mean you have to destroy the wonderful characters that Tolkien created. ...** If you read the book and liked it you probably won't like this movie. If you haven't read the book and like adventure movies this movie is excellent.
Rating:
Summary: Saw It Twice and Was Better the Second Time
Review: The Two Towers is an excellent sequel to The Fellowship of the Ring. The strengths of the movie lie in the special effects, the acting, and the battle scenes. For those who have not read the book, it would be difficult to identify the territories and the characters upon first viewing of this movie, even if you happened to see The Fellowship of the Ring. Upon second viewing, one will likely get a much better ability to perceive the significance of each territory of Middle Earth. There are those who criticize the movie for its tendencies to stray from the original storyline, and they may have their case. I say that perhaps the main weakness that both purists and nonpurists could bring about would be that the sequel has a weaker focus on the main plot, which is to take the ring to the fires of Mordor and destroy it. However, there was not really that much that could be done to prevent this from really happening, for from the conclusion of The Fellowship to that of the Two Towers, the team was split up, leaving the factions fending for themselves in the various regions of Middle Earth. If you have not seen it, here is a recommendation. Though the all-consuming goal and the final product, essentially, is to get to Mordor, think primarily of the intermediate territories in the process. In other words, spend your time comparing and contrasting the scenes from Rohan, Helms Deep, Isengard and Minas Tirith; for Mordor is still ahead.
Rating:
Summary: Unneccesary Digressions
Review: I'm a Tolkien-literate movie goer,wishing I didn't know the books so well that the movies are ruined for me; we had Arwen do Glorfindel's job in the first one, now we have Faramir do a replay of Boromir and dragging Frodo&co. off somewhere they didn't go, and we've ended BOTH films in different places than each book did. And, really, Tolkien's version of the cliff- hanger was the better one in each case.Can't say that these changes in the plot,(lots of others, too), actually improve the flow for cinema,and saying that you're putting classic literature on the screen suggests you must have some faith to that. AAA+ visuals and creatures, way too much time spent on arming for battle;could've spent that on realizing the STORY. Cool to see how these folks realize entities like Fangorn and Smeagol, feel that the characterizations are loyal to Tolkien's vision. Wish the script were just as faithful,(what the ... happened to Shelob?!?),then you'd have a perfectly bang-on movie! BTW, I think TheHobbit would have made a ripping prequel film;Dragons generally gross well at the box-office......
| 
