Rating: 
Summary: Dwarf-tastic, arse-numbing, 3 hour string of B-grade cliches
Review: Far too many people have prattled on about how this film (and its predecessor) are among the greatest in Cinema history. Utter, utter bunk. This is a great rainy Saturday afternoon matinee, and if all that was being claimed for it were that, I'd give it four or five stars. But no, there is a hard core of mediaeval battle revivalists (which, to my surprise, seems to comprise a large part of the film-going population) who say that with this series Peter Jackson has redefined cinema, and to them (well, you, I guess) I say he has done nothing of the kind, unless you call the cinematic equivalent of "I Love 1983" a re-definition of cinema. Which is my first beef: far from being a "triumph of the imagination", this has to be one of the least original films I've ever seen. Every scene is saturated in cliché. What perhaps ought to be respectful cap-doffing to celluloidal elders comes off as plain derivative - derivative, what's more, of B-Grade films: Gandalf is Ben Kenobi; the battle of Helm's Deep is the final scene of The Alamo; the ogres turning the treadmill to open the gates of Mordor ape Schwarzenegger's opening scene in Conan the Destroyer; the troll-like horsey things streaming across the uplands are straight out of Jurassic Park, the apocalyptic riders on their dinosaur-winged pterodactyls from that frightful Sinbad movie; the walking trees (walking trees? WALKING TREES?? Give me a break!) right out of Labryrinth. There is even a straight-faced impersonation of Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, and one of those ugly bad dudes was so closely modelled on Nosferatu I'm not convinced it wasn't Max Schreck playing the part. There was nothing new, no agenda set, no trail blazed at all: What you have is Willow, Excalibur, Labyrinth, Krull, Highlander, Clash of the Titans, Conan the Barbarian, the pilot for Robin of Sherwood and the serious bits (!) from Monty Python and the Holy Grail rolled into one big bag, and given a CGI budget that would make third world nations weep. All of this with nothing more is still, of course, a pretty cool movie experience. It's grand, it's epic - they haven't made films with this sort of sweep for fifty years, so it's great to see - but Jackson's such a gifted director, and he's got a track record of making such perceptive, witty, moving pieces of cinema (see for example Heavenly Creatures and Forgotten Silver), that I think we're entitled to expect a little more. But that's all you get. Part of the problem, I think, is over-reverence. THIS MOVIE IS SO PO-FACED IT IS UNBELIEVABLE. Like it or not, the idea of walking tree-shepherds is patently potty. So Tolkein thought of it: fine, if you can't bring yourself to do some judicial editing, put it in. But do you need to keep a straight face about it? A film in this genre desperately needs the off-the-ball wit and timing of a Jim Henson - or a Peter Jackson, for that matter - it really needs comic relief. But Jackson dares not commit that sacrilege. The nearest he gets is a dwarf with a Brian Blessed fixation and a schizophrenic goblin thing with a ring complex, which you'll be glad to hear looks exactly like it sounds: i.e. a naked David Bowie. You CANNOT expect (well - should not be able to, at any rate) an audience to sit through three hours of pre-Raphaelite mush featuring elfin dialogue (helpfully subtitled!), possessed kings, wizards on white chargers, immortal fairies and earthy maidens, legions of ugly monsters (ten thousand strong, sirrah) and leading characters who have nary a finger laid on any of them in three hours of non-stop close-quarters battle, in which the enemy body count can be measured in thousands, without at least a knowing wink. But, even from Jackson, a knowing winker par excellence, there is none. All this effort, all this budget, all this talent, and what you get is a film which rests content on its surface thrills. The characters don't develop - the actors inject no personality or interpretation into their acting: the dialogue tells us that Frodo is becoming increasingly corrupted by the ring, but nothing in his actual performance does. Aragorn is the dullest hero-figure since Kevin Costner. And he never shaves, but his three day growth never grows. Christopher Lee is reduced to his stock in trade as a hammy evil-dude bit-part. Finally, at the end of this buttock-torturing instalment, we are no closer at all to the quest than we were at the beginning. There's a working definition of gratuitous, if ever there was one. Look, it's good, no doubt about that. Compared to Lara Croft, Tomb Raider or Battlefield Earth, it might seem like a work of genius. But in any context wider than that, it's just another sword and sorcery epic. And really, what is with those walking trees?
Rating:
Summary: TOLKIEN HAS PROBABLY TURNED OVER IN HIS GRAVE.....
Review: Peter Jackson has done some wonderful things with his making of "Fellowship of the Ring" amd some disgraceful things with the
"Two Towers". I understand not being able to have everything in the movie that is in the books. BUT, I feel rewriting parts of a masterpiece is
unforgivable. The escape to and from The Prancing Pony should not
have been touched, the ride to Rivendale should have been as in the book. (The
Extended Version is much better.) In the Two Towers it was unforgiveable for Jackson to have re-written the Chapters 4,5, and 6 of Book 4. He presents Faramir
falsely and destroys what Tolkien was trying to relate-that there
were some honorable men who would help Frodo and not try and steal the Ring. The movie would have been so much better if Jackson had just followed the books. Jackson's creation of Gollum and Treebeard was magnificent and he
he did a wonderful job with them. The movie is worth haveing all the same..
Rating: 
Summary: I`m sorry it ended..
Review: When the movie finished after almost three hours I was sorry it ended...Spectacular movie! I just wanna thanks Mr. Peter Jackson. The cast is marvellous, everything is top of the game. But just don't expect it to be so faithful an adaptation as the first film was. He centered around Aragorn. ... Also, I'd like to know, adding the totals from the first and second movies, how many creatures have Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli already killed. I think it may be a new world record for movies... GOLLUM is the treasure here. Simply perfect. All in all, Peter Jackson is giving a lesson to George Lucas of how to use special effects in pro of the history and, AT THE SAME TIME, to develop great characters and obtain great performances from his actors...
Rating: 
Summary: Stop Whining About The Adaption of The Book
Review: I wish all these people would stop grading this movie down because it deviates from the book. This is Hollywood people, not literary class 101. Making a film is a very different prospect from writing a novel. In Hollywood they are constantly changing the plotlines of books when adapting them to film. For Example, if you've ever read the novel The English Patient, and then watch the film, you will see that they are basically entirely different stories. The novel version worked for its author, winning the Booker prize, while the movie version worked for Hollywood, winning 9 Oscars. Peter Jackson took the source material and crafted it into what he considered to be the best story for the screen. I think people who judge this film against the novel are simply missing the point. When judged on its own merits, this is an outstanding film. If you liked the first movie you will not be dissapointed in the Two Towers, unless you are going to compare every plot change against the story as told in the book. This is not the novel The Two Towers, it is the film version and should be judged accordingly.
Rating:
Summary: ...
Review: Two Towers is much more than the empty CGI mess of the new Star Wars films, but it is nevertheless not the masterpiece that some people are claiming. The film is lavish and has nice moments; but there is a distinct lack of movement and structure to it that causes it to not quite work. Specifically, the three major storylines never mesh or balance with each other. The two minor hobbits have nothing to do, and are extraneous characters. There is a general shapelessness to the film that makes it a confusing experience.
This shapelessness is due to the devotion to the storyline of the original book. This is a brave and foolish choice. ... The acting and cinematography are often heavy-handed, boring and melodramatic. Do we really need to see so many sweeping shots of the countryside? And do the actors have to speak-so-slowly? As if this is The Ten Commandments. When Gimli jokes about Dwarvish women, the tone of the film is improved a lot. The film is taken too seriously: no whismicality or spontaneity (sp?) to speak of. Same flaw was in FOTR. Enough has been said of the changes to the storyline that actually negate the story in the book. Specifically, the fact that we never know that the reason why Saruman had the minor hobbits captured is because they are thought to have the Ring. Saruman's rebellion against Sauron is never even alluded to! Frodo shows the ring to the Nazgul, thereby negating all the action of the War of the Ring, and also negating the surprise that the hobbits are supposed to have caused Sauron. One final negative: some characters are corny. The voices of Gollum, the Orcs and the Ents are very corny. They sound like some cheap Saturday morning cartoon characters, as well as being nearly impossible to comprehend. Now for the positives.
One: The film avoids many of the pitfalls of the preceding film. The static action scenes of the second half of FOTR ruined it for me; TT totally avoids that pitfall. The action scenes seem nicely paced, and actually have effect on the storyline! One action scene was invented for the film: the fight with the Warg-riders. However, this happened in The Hobbit; and besides, the sequence is very nicely done. Two: the grittiness of the atmosphere improves the appearance of the film. Despite an excess of sweeping shots, mentioned earlier, the griminess of the surroundings makes the film more interesting that the continuous goldenness/cleanness of FOTR.
Speaking of which, the props and sets are still *too complicated*! A little less curlicue and a little more simplicity would be easier on the eye. However, that's more of a subjective point. Three: Gollum still has some of the usual flaws of an animated character - i.e., the animators never seem to make him stay still, he has a silly voice. However, he is an interesting character, and the CGI does look as good as people say. Four: the battle scenes are as impressive as people say, especially the various siege devices. Saruman is depicted as using gunpowder, which fits in with his love of machines and explosions!
One minor point though: The orcs form up in very deep blocks-formations. No army in the world would form up in such deep formations. It makes the frontage of an army narrower, while getting no benefit from the rear ranks. This opens up the force to outflanking maneuvers, as well as being vulnerable to a collapse in the forward ranks. Ancient and mediaeval infantry would form up, on average, eight men deep. Yes, I know this is fantasy... Overall, TT is not quite as good as people seem to think. It's incoherent and sometimes corny and melodramatic. But it is still an entertaining film; it "works" in that sense, I suppose. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title
Rating:
Summary: I wish I'd stayed at home.
Review: I didn't see the first movie but I went to this one. Ugh. I'm not really a battle fan. Also, I've decided I prefer movies where you can look at the characters and not want to shield your eyes. Come on, do they really have to make squelching noises when a creature changes facial expressions? A good part of that movie could have been cut out. By the end of my movie I was fidgeting around in my seat because my back hurt due to the length. Their are pretty much no women in this, and the ones that are in the movie are undeveloped characters. If you do decide to go to this movie (although I really reccomend not seeing it or seeing the movie at home so you can fast-forward through parts of it) you should have seen the first one so you won't be as confused as I was. Another good idea would be to bring a flashlight and a good book if you get bored, unless you can fall asleep upon whim.
Rating: 
Summary: Headlong to Helm's Deep
Review: Faramir and Frodo in Osgiliath?...Nahhhhh...Peter Jackson blew it with that crap...Otherwise still a great movie...Can't wait till next year!...Don't expect any acting or best picture kudo's this year though...The story was too disjointed unless you saw the first and/or knew the books really well... Most of the beauty of the story seemed rushed...'Headlong to Helm's Deep', could've been the title... However, Gollum!!! what a marvel...There could possibly be a special acting category inaugurated this year for Gollum alone...Also I thought that Jackson had written out the Ents...I was amazed!!!...The flood was as first visualized 35 years ago... I just hope that the DVD version will restore some 'missing' parts to this all, as he did with 'Fellowship'...then in two summers, (2004) he can release all three 'longer' versions theatrically...(once they make back their money)...
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Ring: The Two Towers
Review: This was the best movie I've seen since, well...The Fellowship of the Rings. Not a moment of it was boring. And I must say that Elijah Wood does a great job in bringing out his character, Frodo. And so does all of the other acters. I really think that you should see this movie. But make sure your there early because you'll want to get a good seat. I was late and had to sit in the front. Bummer
Rating:
Summary: Why isn't there an Oscar for New Zealand?
Review: The Oscar-winning Fellowship of the Ring has been and gone. The Two Towers is the film of the moment. It's good. Cinema can't be exactly the same as the books on which they are based. And Peter Jackson gives more to do to characters like Arwen to demonstrate that she has a lot to give up to marry Aragorn and that even the deserving Eowyn cannot compete with her. One criticism in our group was that Faramir's character has been shot to pieces, but perhaps Peter Jackson needed to show Faramir's thought processes and the gravity of the eventual decision he made to let Frodo go. It did the previous portrayal of Boromir no harm either. John Rhys-Davies did a good job as Gimli and as the voice-over for Treebeard. Again it seemed to be necessary to demonstrate the arguments which persuaded such an unhasty character to go up against Saruman. The best actor in the show must surely be the one who played the partly computer-generated Gollum, who portrayed to perfection the two opposing facets to his character - Smeagol & the Gollum he had become. He even got to be heroic in the Dead Marches. But the real star of the series so far is New Zealand, itself. All that lovely scenery really sets off the story, and the co-operation of bit actors, extras etc must have been worth something. I think it will be necessary to see Return of the King to have a true opinion of the entire production. Peter Jackson left the Shelob bit to that last show, and it may have been not to have too many spider movies in one year. (8 legged creatures, Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets). I want to see what he actually does next December.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Film of the Year
Review: The Lord of the Rings:The Two Towers is a brilliant piece of work. It is just as enjoyable, if not more enjoyable then the first film. The Two Towers cannot really be better then The Fellowship of the Ring because they are really, in a sense, the same movie, only cut into three different parts, and are being released at three different times. This film is, however, darker and alot more intense then The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring. I have seen it twice already, and I will gladly see it many more times.
| 
