Rating: 
Summary: LOTR: TTT
Review: So what if there were elves at Helms Deep, a change in Faramir, the fact that Aragorn falls off of a cliff (but lives), and a part in the movie where Osgiliath is shown. Even though those parts are not in the book trilogy but are in the movie that doesn't mean that 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' is a bad film. Those parts that are in the movie and aren't in 'The Lord of the Rings' book trilogy are way cool in the first place. Books and movies are two totally different things. And when a movie is based on a HUGE book there has to be parts that are changed, added, or cut to a film that is based on a HUGE book or otherwise the movie would be WAY too long. 'The Lord of the Rings' book trilogy is very big and has many chapters and pages in it so that is why 'The Lord of the Rings' movie trilogy is a little different than the book trilogy. It is in my opinion that 'Lord of the Rings' movie trilogy is a wonderful adaptation of the author J.R.R. Tolkiens 'Lord of the Rings' book trilogy! 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' is terrific! But its sequel 'Lord of the Rings: Two Towers' is much much better! The action was intense, the drama was great, and the suspense was wonderful! 'The Two Towers' has spectacular special effects, a phenomenal music (score), and brilliant acting! I can't wait to own 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' on video when it is released in stores!
Rating: 
Summary: Titanic Two Towers
Review: By the time you get to read this review, you will know everything about the plot of The Two Towers and how it differs from Tolkien's original, the excellence of the acting, direction and so on, so I won't go into these. But a few months on -- and just a few weeks from the video release of the theatrical version -- it's time to take stock.The first thing to get out of the way is that nothing is served by making detailed comparisons between the book and the film. Each medium is different and must be judged on its own terms. As an avid Tolkien reader my eyebrows were raised by some of the things in the film, but then I remembered how stilted the first Harry Potter movie was given its slavish devotion to the book; the difficulty of making The Two Towers into any kind of film, given that it contains three separate stories, none of which have beginnings or endings; and that fact that books and films must succeed on their own merits. To get away from Tolkien for a minute, consider Umberto Eco's novel The Name Of The Rose and the subsequent film starring Sean Connery. In the book you learned an amazing amount of back-story about medieval monasteries, the inquisition and so on, but in the film this is of necessity cut away to make a compelling detective drama. Both are excellent -- in different ways. Now that's out of the way, The Two Towers has to be considered as an action adventure, comparable with -- say -- a Terminator movie or one of the Star Wars franchise. Here TTT comes off very well indeed. It has the same emotional punch and grittiness of Terminator 2, and exposes the superficial shininess of Attack of the Clones for the lightweight FXercise it is. Compare the performances of Viggo Mortensen and Hayden Christiansen -- see what I mean? But TTT has an overwhelming majesty that transcends all these, partly because of the strength and depth of Tolkien's material, but mainly because Peter Jackson made the film with such exquisite care, love and respect for his material. If you find fault with Jackson, think how TTT might have fared as a Disney cartoon (Disney had the rights once, I believe) or compare with the Ralph Bakshi animation of the 1970s (a valiant effort, but forgettable.) TTT is a memorable and involving film to the extent that when you leave the theatre you feel not so much entertained as exhausted -- I guess all really good films should have that effect. So why have I given this only four stars? For two reasons. First, I felt that the five-star Fellowship Of The Ring was a better film, in that the story is easier to tell, and less troubled by complexities of narrative and the motivations of the characters. (This is part of the reason why, say, The Phantom Menace will never be as good a story as the first Star Wars movie, irrespective of its other faults.) The sheer relentless, sword-swiping grit of TTT was a slap in the face after the relatively gentle Fellowship of the Ring, with its greater contrasts of light and shade: in TTT there is no Lorien to act as welcome relief to Moria, and no rustic hobbit-holes you feel you can crawl back to if the going gets rough -- TTT feels like one long sword fight. The second reason is that the value of TTT will probably be best assessed only as part of the whole trilogy, after we have seen and digested The Return of the King, and have done something I'm already looking forward to -- seeing all three movies back to back in their extended DVD versions. Now, that would be the Cinematic Experience to Rule Them All.
Rating:
Summary: Calm down folks!
Review: I am a long-term lover of the Professors marvelous creation. That is if he indeed create it-it may have always been there and he only the discoverer. I have been reading the Work at least once through every couple of years since the early 70's! If Middle Earth was a real place I'd pack my bags and move there with stopover in OZ along the way! The Work is a nearly perfect fantasy!
I too was originally bothered by the changes in the story of the Two Towers. Boromir and Faramir are black and white good and bad. Peter Jackson just made Faramir a little gray!
I believe the issue that Jackson wanted to magnify with this change was who VOLUNTARILY gives up the ring. SPOILER! SPOILER! There are only two people in the entire story who has touched the ring who does this and that is Bilbo and Sam! There are several rather important people into whos grasps the ring comes. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadreal and Faramir are ultimately are not caught by the ring and Boromir was caught! If the ring gets to Minis Tirith all is lost! Sauron will prevail and his greatest spoil will be the ring. The ring knows this and it is constantly trying to get there! Jackson is, I believe, trying to emphasize this. Even if the Nazgul saw Frodo in Osgilith he will just assume that all is well and the ring is indeed in Minis Tirith with those silly weak men!
I believe that he could have kept our favorite son as snowy white but in terms of the movie he wouldn't have been quite as interesting. This does not affect the overall story or intent. Most importantly Faramir refuses the temptation and lets Frodo and Sam go!
The Ent storyline seemed strangely truncated. I believe that much of the new footage in the extended version will fix much of that!
On the positive side-for the first time we have a living, breathing Gollum! Practically as real as a heart attack! The team, including Andy Serkis, should have been given a special academy award for an outstanding achievement. Thankfully there is always the last movie!
Both movies have been more faithful to the book than it ever wood have been if it had been hacked up by Hollywood! Chris Rock would have ended up as Gollum and it would all have taken place on the streets of Beverly Hills and be about an hour and a half long!
And if the finally to this thing lives up to the first two movies we have quite a treat in store!
So calm down all my fellow Tolkien Nazis and enjoy the show!
Rating:
Summary: The Most Beloved Movie Ever Made!
Review: Like "Fellowship of the Ring" "Two Towers" is an epic movie masterpiece! It is a great adaptation of "Lord of the Rings" book trilogy and has wonderful special effects, spectacular music (score), and incredible acting! "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" will be the best movie out on video when it is released on store shelves! I can't wait to buy it!!!
Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but still wonderful
Review: *SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't read The Return of the King, I suggest you skip this review. It's true. It doesn't follow the books as closely as Fellowship of the Ring. But for the most part, the changes didn't bother me.
Some people have said they didn't like how the Arwen-Aragorn relationship has been played up, giving Liv Tyler more screen time. What do you expect? Should Peter Jackson barely mention Arwen and then in ROTK, she suddenly shows up to marry Aragorn? In the books, Arwen is mentioned maybe 3 or 4 times briefly before the end of ROTK, where she marries Aragorn. Personally, this confused me the first time I read it. It would complicate things for moviegoers who hadn't read the books: they would probably wonder why Aragorn and Eowyn don't get together, and they wouldn't understand why he was marrying this elf at the end. So they put stuff in from Tolkien's appendixes.
The only two things that bothered me:
1. Faramir. WHAT was Jackson THINKING? The books make it VERY CLEAR that Faramir is different than Boromir. The movies make him seem exactly like Boromir, if not worse, since he has men under his command.
2. Saruman possessing Theoden. I don't think Tolkien ever implied possession. Theoden was corrupted by Wormtounge's counselings, but not POSSESSED by Saruman. It was a strange touch, though not as bad as Faramir. The other things, such as Aragorn falling off a cliff (which allowed for a great entrance later, I must say) and the elves coming to Helm's Deep, aren't such a big deal for me, though I don't really understand the purpose of putting them in there. Oh well. It was a great movie, despite the changes, and while it didn't follow Tolkein's book perfectly, it captured the plot, and more importantly, the SPIRIT of the books.
Rating:
Summary: I am the Lord of the Rings
Review: This movie is totally awesome. We once again follow Frodo Baggins as he continues his quest to become a Jedi Knight. Unfortunately, Frodo is captured by the evil Lord Harry Potter, son of Queen Amadala. Just as he is about to meet his match, Gandolf arrives on Falcor and saves him. And then Aerosmith girl arrives with her asteroid-blowing-up, oil-driller boyfriend and yells "Let's do this". Needless to say, one big explosion. Awesome, totally awesome.
Rating:
Summary: From a lover of the book
Review: Loved the movie, thought it was better than the first, just becuase its more action-packed. The CG during Helm's Deep is absolutely breathtaking. I highly recommend. Of course, they did leave of almost an entire third of the book, the parts including Shelob for instance. But they'll be in The Return of the King. I'm eagerly awaited TTT's release on DVD and the extended version in November. A few cautions though, for those with qualing hearts:), avoid it like the plague, or the Uruk-Hai will have you on the spits.
Rating:
Summary: An Outstanding Movie!
Review: 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' is an outstanding movie sequel! It is as outstanding as its prequel 'Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring'. The special effects were great! Musical (score) was incredible! And the acting was superb! The best thing about 'The Two Towers' is that it goes by author J.R.R. Tolkiens 'Lord of the Rings' book trilogy in a unique way! I can't wait to own 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' for VHS when it is released in stores!
Rating:
Summary: Why the movie is the best it could be
Review: Frankly, I'm a bit aggravated with the multitude of reveiw's that are not at all reviews of the fime, but complaint filled diatribes on why it is bad compared to the book. Here's the long and the short of it, many people's have alot of the same complaints, so I'll address the most commone ones. The first major complaint one often hears is, why is it Elves that arrive at Helm's Deep, when it doesn't happen like that in the book. The answer is simple, in the book, it is the Dunedain that arrive to aid Rohan, however in order for that to have had any meaning to anyone who saw the movie that is not well read in Tolkien, Mr. Jackson would have to have added about 30 minutes of additional film in either Fellowship or Two Towers in order to explain to the general audience who the Dunedain were. The important thing is that the help came at the behest of Elrond, which Haldir says to Theoden as he arrives.
Second big complaint, Gimli was too much of a comic character. This one is mostly directed at AD&D people who think that because in their D&D world dwarfs are tough and humorless and dry means that that is how Tolkien's Dwarves should be. I ask all of those people to remember the Demeanor of the Dwarves in The Hobbitt. The very first thing they do is sing some VERY comical verses at Bilbo's expense. As far as Gimli's seeming comic nature in Two Towers, realize that his sarcasm which makes some people laugh is often what insults others, for example the incident with Eomer and the Rohirrim when they first meet.
Next big complaint, They made the Ents seem Stupid. No, they didn't. Speaking slowly, and being slow are two different things, and Treebeard points out, that things take a long time to say in Entish.
SO, what's up with the kill tally that Gimli and Legolas had? Go back and Read that portion of the book, it is in there.
Last, the one that bugs me the most that people complain about is Faramir. Why does Farmir act exactly like Boromir? He doesn't, ever, at all. Faramir is not tempted by the ring, he is misguided in what the ring can do, so he takes frodo to Gondor, Just like he does in the book, then lets Frodo go, Just like in the book. The slight shift in character can be easily explained from a position of how important certain character's character arcs are. Faramir's is relativly low, Aragorn's is High, if Faramir exhibits the same amount of nobility and resistance to the ring, then how special would Aragorn's personality remain?
I hope this puts some clarity into why things were done the way they were, speaking as someone who has studied screenwriting and film, I can say that the script was adapted in the only way possible in order to make these films a body of work that couls be financially justified as a box office production. Recognize that Jackson could have put every minute detail, reference, and unimportant character in the film, but then it would have been a TV miniseries, with effects more akin to his Dead Alive, or Meet The Feebles films, as opposed to the Brilliant Cast, Effects, and Locations that actually created Middle Earth and this brilliant series of films.
Rating: 
Summary: how can so many people like this?!?!?!
Review: In the fellowship, when PJ and co. changed things to be different from the way that tolkien wrote the story and least it made sense in the context of the movie. In the two towers, all of the deviations from the book are not only stupid, but pointless. From the Aaragorn fighting with wargs and falling off cliffs to the ents, the oldest and wisest race in middle earth getting outsmarted and going way out of character by making a decision and changing their minds to the rediculous comic relief of Gimli (and I'm not even mentioning how they butcher faramir), these changes only served to hurt the story. Even when they follow along with the storyline, all of tolkiens magic is ripped away but the complete lack of subtlety. Theoden wasn't possesed by saruman and by making him so it robbed so much from what is otherwise a beautiful story. I'm sorry but after the amazing job they did on the fellowship, I can't help but be enormously dissapointed with the hollywood ... that I saw in the two towers and surprised by how many people think that this is actually a good movie!
It's sad how easy it is for hollywood to rob people of artistic integrity for the sake of maximizing profits (it's like George Lucas and Peter Jackson got together to write Gimli and Jar Jar's characters at the same time)
|
