Rating: 
Summary: A review to please purist and non-reader newbies
Review: I've read a lot of reviews from "pursist" who have completely trashed this movie for not following the book exactly and also newbie's who seem to think that the movie is flawless and don't seem to mind that Peter Jackson needlessly butchered much of Tolkein's good work. I would like to inform you that you are both wrong. The LOTR books would not make good films as they are, there are simply far too rich, they need to be abridged and simplified. However, Jackson did an absolutely rotten job of this. He needlessly added pointless action scenes such as those terribly animated "warg" riders (wargs are giant, intelligent, and malicous wolves, Pete) and the much hated Aragorn falling of the cliff and then wasting 30 minutes flashing back to liv tyler scenes. While simultaneously leaving out very important details such as Gandalf's journey to Isengard, where he shows Saruman what's what, obtains the palantir, and many other meetings and plot points. These details could have fit into a 3 hour movie if Jackson wouldn't have tried to "improve" on Tolkein by adding made up scenes. The Two Towers did do an amazing job on some things, such as Smeagol and Helm's Deep (so the evles weren't there in the book, get over it, i for one wanted a chance to seem some evles kick some ass and it did fit somewhat with themes present in the history of Middle Earth, which i think is what Jackson was getting at). So all in all I think the movie is a firm okay. Not really good, but not completely awful. It does make me sad though because it did seem to me that Jackson was a lot more faithful to the LOTR story in Fellowship and made it shorter by simply leaving things out (Tom Bombadil for example), but did not resort to adding a lot of new material the way he did in TT. Oh well, perhaps he is going the way of George Lucas, the success of the first movie must have deluded him to the point where he thought he could do a better job that Tokein. I guess Peter doesn't really understand the whole theme of LOTR which is sad. Power corrupts. Even if you desire power to do good you will do evil. In this case if you desire the power to change Tolkein to make a good movie you will make a bad one. Ironic isn't it.
Rating: 
Summary: oww
Review: ranks as just about as nearly as bad as the second Star Wars (money....) movie in terms of complete disapointment. a sprawling, directionless, monotonous mess filled to the brim with : unrealistic way too polished looking computer FX (like I haven't seen this ruin a movie before, ahem the new star wars syndrome, ahem), terrible, confused actors on par with low budget computer game cut scenes, and generic, irritating "medieval fairy war" music that will shake your brains right out of your head (perhaps an attempt to make you gaze in awe at this poor pathetic attempt at a film). All in all the experience was like having to sit through a very long and somewhat bad "in between mission" computer graphic laden cut scene in some geeks "medieval battle" computer game. this ... - and yes, read the book instead. the end.
Rating: 
Summary: A reply
Review: I almost never reply to other reviews but this time I had to. The simple reason is that in my opinion [some people] clearly don't have a clue about creating this kind of movie or book adaptations in general. Comparing it with Brideshead re-visited which is as far as I know only excellent as a tv-series is like comparing apples and oranges. Also, reviewing it from a vhs tape...brrrr.
Although I might agree about the way Frodo is portrayed it is also true that Frodo doesn't have much depth in the book either.
And true the short detour that Aragon takes of the cliff is pointles. The arrival of the elves at Helmsdeep, however, serves dramatic purposes in the movie that acutally work quite well. Besides it makes the odds of holding the keep a litle more realistic. Who cares whether this is in the book or not. The keyword here is adaptation! I am not interested in literally filming the book. What's the point?
I think what some Tolkien afficionado's don't realise that as far as the fantasy film genre goes filmhistory is made. There isn't any fantasy movie that even comes close this trilogy. And by the way in his spare time Peter Jackson makes funny litle horror movies like braindead and badtaste...
As far as a review should go I think TTT should get 4 out of 5 stars. This is largely due to the fact that I cannot think of any second part in a trilogy that is satisfying on it's own (unless of course it are relatively seperate stories - like the godfather movies). And if the rumours are true that TROTK combines the best of part one and two it should be excellent!
Rating:
Summary: dead on the tracks
Review: Having read a couple of dozen reviews by purist and "haven't got a clue". I was deeply disappointed with the movie. The cinematography was outstanding and I would love to get Aragorn some shampoo for oily hair. Legolas definatly has the right hair care products. I really tried to be more open minded through the second film after the first movie's menagerie. I've seen The Two towers three times and still get so irate. I realize some concessions had to be made for time restrictions but if we spent less time in Aragorns dream world perhaps actual real life events of the book would have fit in. I liked the Ents and grudgingly accepted the turn from actual events
BUT where were the Hurons? They made the Battle of Helms deep really cool. In the Tolkien trilogy Aragorn was introduced as a foulish character with a fair air. By Helms deep Aragorn was more regal and spoke with great authority and quickly grew confidence from all the people. The movie Aragorn is still confusing and un-noblish. What happened to his character developement? Speaking of Rohan where were the sweet rolling hills of GREEEN GRASS? Just where was the Gold at the GOLDEN hall? Where were the FAIR HAIRED and NOBLE people of the Rohirrum? I believe in the Return of the King we're going to see the most warped version of the three books though no real clues were given away in the "making of Return of the King". Half the starring cast hadn't read the books or read them during filming. So we can't count on their Tolkien integrity. I expect the producers haven't read them and Peter Jackson only listened to a really cool Audio drama on CD (thus the "Artistic Lisense).
Bottom line I am still young enough to watch a remake in ten years perhaps put on as a BBC or A&E or PBS miniseries. Or even if Amberlin is still in production mode Spielberg may do us the honor.
Rating:
Summary: The Heroes of Middle Earth
Review: The epic battle of good versus evil continues with the thrilling film spectacle "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". With the Fellowship broken, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) continue their quest into Mordor and form an uneasy alliance with the creature Gollum. As Sauron's power continues to grow, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) aid the people of Rohan against Saruman's (Christopher Lee) massive army. "The Two Towers" is an outstanding continuation of Peter Jackson's award-winning adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's epic fantasy. The film contains an incredibly engaging storyline with such memorable scenes and interesting characters. The cast is wonderful with Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and Ian McKellen delivering some powerful performances. The creature Gollum is a stunning visual accomplishment and Andy Serkis's voice work is remarkable. The movie also features some amazing special effects and edge-of-your-seat action sequences including the climactic battle of Helm's Deep.If you're unable to wait for the 4-Disc Extended Edition in November, then "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" 2-Disc Edition is certainly a fine addition to any DVD collection. The sensational blockbuster is presented in its theatrical 2.35:1 widescreen format. The DVD contains a flawless video transfer with rich color detail. Its 5.1-EX Dolby Digital sound is stunning and very aggressive. It might not be the Extended Edition but this 2-Disc edition features numerous behind-the-scenes featurettes, preview of the upcoming "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King", trailers, TV spots, web featurettes and a music video. Overall, "The Two Towers" is a fantastic DVD and definitely scores an "A".
Rating:
Summary: Best middle of a trilogy every
Review: Two Towers is buy far the best 2nd act of a trilogy ever made. This movie is incredible, and actually builds on the first.
Rating:
Summary: Astonishing. 20 Star Rating!!! *****************************
Review: The 1st movie blew me away, and this one took me even farther. Yes, there are going to be the ones 100% faithful to the books, who may find things left out and be a bit let down; I also love the books, and think that these are the only movies that have ever taken me right into the authors world, literally. The visual effects (Gollum!!) in this one take your breath away, the battle scenes are incredible, the story itself does not suffer any from these things either. Another perfected masterpiece here in the trilogy. They say that The Return of The King is going to be even better than The Two Towers: if that's so, then it will go down in history as the best Fantasy/Adventure ever filmed, because I still can't believe this one. Buy the widescreen version of this one, and really get hold of that extended version that's coming out in November, can't wait for that one. 20 STAR RATING FROM SCRAGGY'S TOMB OF DVD's. ********************!!!
Rating:
Summary: ***************WAIT**************
Review: We all know that the movie's awesome, but if you want the full experience of it, then wait until november when they release the Platinum editions. There will be so many more features on those editions and the movie itself will be about 30 mins longer. If you truly can't wait until then, go ahead, but you'll be missing out.
Rating:
Summary: The sequel that defies expectations
Review: Simply put, "The Two Towers" lives up to the standards the filmmakers set for themselves in the first film. It is remarkably faithful to the books, and it is an excellent film in any estimation. The style established in the first film is maintained rigorously in the second. Colors, sounds, dialogue, effects, acting... all excellent, all used well. I cannot think of a single element with which I was disappointed, but there were a few things which stood out as particularly impressive. The achievement and realization of Gollum as a character was better than I think anyone expected. Very quickly, I forgot while watching the film that he is essentially a virtual character, and what we see on the screen was created by digital artists (along with the incomparable Andy Serkis). Far from suffering from Jar-Jar Binks syndrome, Gollum becomes as real a character as any of the actors on-screen, with depth and feeling and even sympathy. I didn't expect to be given a Gollum I could believe in, but Jackson and his team surprised me here. Even apart from Gollum, the effects of this second film were even better than the first. I can see that, as good as they were when they started the project, the artists working on Lord of the Rings have already begun to improve their talents, and it shows in the work. The massive battle sequence at Helm's Deep is only one example of the fine work they are doing now. Howard Shore's music for the film has once again enchanted me thoroughly. Shore is a talented composer for just about any film, but for Lord of the Rings he has clearly pulled out all the stops and created something completely new for him, but utterly perfect for the films. His epic, sweeping, emotional score is ideal for capturing the essence of the story. It's gotten to the point that listening to even a small portion of the music invokes memories of the films for me. The actors chosen for Lord of the Rings could not be better, and in this movie they prove it even moreso than in the first. Driven to extremes of desperation and hopelessness, and still coming out the other side intact, they show their basic humanity and maintain a sense of who they are. Whether siding with good or evil, all the characters are essentially believeable, and that is a rare achievement. The changes that were made for the film version of "The Two Towers" take a little getting used to for someone who has read the books, but they don't really detract from the story at all. Many of them actually seem to make the story more accessible, and to establish some plot point a little earlier or a little more clearly. In many ways, "Fellowship" was an easier film to watch. "The Two Towers" seems somewhat depressing and dark in comparison, as well it should. This second film is a story about finding hope in the face of hopelessness. As each part of the story progresses, the characters progress deeper into the darkness that is engulfing the world. Sam expresses this explicitly near the end of the film, when he says that it gets to the point where you don't want to know what happens next anymore, because it seems that it can't possibly turn out well. These are people presented with insurmountable odds, but what makes it so compelling to watch is that they try anyway -- "because there's some good left in this world... and it's worth fighting for." A few words about the DVD: it's a good-looking presentation, and the extras are fun and all worth watching. Sean Astin's short film, "The Long and Short of It," is presented on the second disc, as is a 10-minute behind-the-scenes preview of the third film and a sampling of scenes that will be seen in the Extended Edition of "The Two Towers." Just as on "Fellowship," the extras on "The Two Towers" are almost long enough to be a film in themselves, and they are all well-produced and worth watching. All in all, a very well-done film. Peter Jackson's film version of The Lord of the Rings is (so far) the best fantasy epic ever committed to film. Perhaps the only drawback to watching "The Two Towers" now is that it makes me even more anxious to see "The Return of the King."
Rating: 
Summary: Unnecessary deviations from book, but still a GREAT MOVIE!
Review: I love these adaptations of LOTR, and they are very well done. The acting and direction is all superb. Ian McKellon shines once again as Gandalf the White. The effects department has both the Balrog and Gollum pegged dead on, and the Ents are at least valiant effort - I'm sure all readers have them pictured differently. Many "changes" form the book are necessary in a film version to compress time and to show things that cannot obviously be read. One example is the removal of the highly entertaining time Pippin and Merry spend with the Ents. Instead, it is replaced with a hasty attack on Isengard. Another example: we see Aragorn being uncertain of his destiny, doubtful, etc. in the movie when all readers know that by the time the books begin, he is quite sure of it and has planned it (with Gandalf's aid) for years. Some would call this an "existentialist reading" of his character, showing a depth that we don't see in the book, but which can be gotten from the appendix of ROTK. I was irritated with what they did to Faramir's character, making him a miniature Boromir as well as the partial reduction of Gimli to comic relief duty. The first is an example of a large departure (Faramir's character is practically opposite of Boromir's), the second a small one; neither was required by the film medium. These gratuitous changes represent bad choices by the writers and directors who are often tempted to wander from the original. However "not all who wander are lost", and these changes do not detract greatly from the movie as a movie and should still be enjoyable by Tolkien fans.
|
