Rating: 
Summary: Excellent movie. As for excellent adaptation...
Review: You've got action, angst, humor, romance, and Gollum. It all makes for a blockbuster.
But not all is well. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a purist. I know the book and movie can't be the same, or else it'd take forever to tell. But some of the changes made by Jackson and crew were really unneccesary.
[begin rant]
-Why did the Elves have to march into Helm's Deep? The Battle of The Last Alliance is called that for a reason.
-Why was Faramir such a prick? Having a 'good' Faramir was a gamble, yes, but one that they should have still tried.
-Why did Merry backtalk to Treebeard, and why did the Ents seem like such boneheads?
-Why was Gimli scraping the bottom of the barrel for humor? Poor Gimli. I felt sorry for his character.
-Why in the name of Hades was Legolas using a skateboar..Okay, I'll stop here.
[/end rant]
They say for the movie to work, changes were necessary. The movie could have still worked, I say, had they not changed SO MUCH. Jackson and crew would have still been left with a mega-blockbuster. FOTR was about as good as a movie adaptation could get. Where did this go wrong?Forgetting the books for a minute: The movie, even to someone whose ever read the books, is not seamless. Not everything flows well. Some scenes are totally out in the left field (all Treebeard scenes). Perhaps the movie is flawed because it had to be chopped up due to time constraints. Let's hope the extended version fixes it. (That said, it's a wiser move to wait and buy the long version only). However, there are many good points. The acting was pretty decent. Gollum was fantastic. Many of the battle scenes rocked. Special effects were seamless. The ending shot (of Mount Doom) was inspired. And this is just to name a few.
Note: The best scenes of the movie, in my opinion, were the 'Arwen' scenes. Yes, of course this veers from the novel, but I loved this change. These scenes were perfect, and kept 100% in the 'feel' of the books. Had all the changes been as good as this, then this movie would probably be untouchable. To the average joe whose never read the books, this movie is an absolute mega-hit. An all-time favourite.
But to others...they must still wait for the definitive adaptation of the 'The Two Towers'. Though, I'd say this comes extremely close. But given the bar that was set by FOTR, it's comes up short. So don't be tempted by the 10 minute preview of Return of the King, wait for the Extended edition.
Rating: 
Summary: BETTER THAN THE FIRST???
Review: I don't like when people say that thsi movie is better than the first or that they wish that the third movie would be better than the first two. Isn't it just one story? one movie as the director says it...
This continuation of the movie is bigger and darker, I can't find words to express the emotion I get from watching these movies. I just CAN'T wait to see the end of the story (Return of the king). I guess these movies will be around for decades. They're the best movies on the universe. These movies have changed my life. The music score is the most fascinating one I have heard in my life and the special effects are magnificent.
I guess I fell sad just like everybody else: After the December 2003, what next?
Rating:
Summary: Beware the Ch. 51 pixellation glitch!!!
Review: New Line has released a huge batch of defective discs with this film. On certain older DVD players (mostly SONY players, but occasionally others), "The Two Towers" will halt, pixellate and sometimes backtrack to a point approximately an hour and a half from the end when Gandalf begins his "fight for Middle Earth has yet to begin" speach at Ch. 51 of the disc. There is literally no way to tell whether your disc is defective simply by looking at the surface of the DVD. Only by bringing it home and watching through Ch. 51 will you be able to tell whether you received a clean copy or a defective coaster. Please BEWARE when purchasing this disc.
Rating:
Summary: Two Towers is good... Gollum is amazing
Review: I haven't read the books myself so my review is based on strictly the movie itself... I also read a few reviews and know about the deviations from the book... I give it five stars because of Gollum basically and just the sheer fact that this movie is being made and the organization, it takes to film in the locations with so many extras and have the special effects this movie has, and the CGI involved and the balancing of the book and screenplay.... just thinking about what it took to make three movies at the same time just boggles the mind, and to pull it off with this much of a seemless job to me is amazing. But back to Gollum, not only is he amazing as a CGI charater, in that he works and looks flawlessly within the scenes. You forget he's totally computer generated and just pay attention to the acting of Andy Serkis.... truelly a great job on the character. I think the flow of the movie is better suited when seen with all three movies, as this seemed to be part of a trilogy, rather than a "whole" movie by itself.... besides this minor quibble... I am greatful to Peter Jackson in bringing this amazing world of middle earth to film.... Bravo!!.
Rating: 
Summary: REBUTTAL TO THE REBUTTAL OF THE PURISTS
Review: Re: Carl Haas, berserkerwhatever who is laughably blind, deaf and more dumb in ways i didn't imagine possible in movie critiquing... OH PUH-LEEEEZE... you sit around and talk about "lightening up" and "getting a life", that it's "just a movie" but you're so riled up with a difference in opinion from a couple of ppl that prefer the book more to the movie because they've probably been devout fans for ages (this ISN'T just a book you know - it actually has become a LEGEND that has spurred on countless conventions, experts and nearly-cult-like attention before a movie of it was ever even dreamed of being made). Naturally there'd be a few disgruntled ones out there. What's the big deal? Some ppl don't like the direction in which the legend was taken and some of them have just as much valid points as you. Yes, they may not be experts at film - but neither are you but does that make it justifiable to just accept a much popular epic story being shredded unnecessarily at least according to the opinions of some?? My personal opinion - the movie definitely didn't shred the entire PLOT but the whole core of the idea Tolkien was taking with his story which NATURALLY does not need to be translated in "15 hrs" of footage or dictated "page for page" was altered at some times unnecessarily.. and well, not for the better. As one reveiwer put it, it was simply not helpful.. if it's anything it may have made things a bit more complicated. Now while I slashed the anti-purists i do have to admit that some of the purists can be a bit anal-retentive.. yeah, it would have been nice to see certain things in the movie done the same way (like the whole brooch thing with Pippen) but that shouldn't allow you to ruin your whole experience. Truth be told: Peter Jackson is the director and of course that gave him the liberty to interpret things in the book differently to what the fans did and really we all have different interpretations of things. Some of it I didn't like, some were ok but in the end I liked it for what it is and we all need to admit converting a plot like this to a movie is an immensely difficult task and it's not easier with mounting pressure from as I say, cult-like fans. I walked in knowing there were things i wouldn't like, as I will with RTK. I didn't care much for the choppy editing.. i think transition from scene to scene and character crisis didn't flow in the least bit but I do feel for PJ because he had to work with the outline of the story which was originally a written thing (kind of like thinking in and out of a box at the same time). When I watch the film I usually skip to just Helm's Deep because as I said I appreciate the movie for what it is - great action which is where it all starts (though not great set work, CGI input and don't get me started on the script). Yet despite all these complaints I liked some parts of it, particularly the battles. My suggestion: the movie is definitely worth watching and you will like some parts but I wouldn't go overboard calling it excellent and breathtaking.. frankly I felt the first one was more of that than this one.
Rating:
Summary: Spectacular Continuation of Tolkien's Tale
Review: The Two Towers, Peter Jackson's second of three movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien's novel The Lord of the Rings, isn't a sequel to The Fellowship of the Ring. Instead, it is the continuation of a single storyline that, like its literary source, was broken up in three parts for manageability. (Tolkien never envisioned his tale of the War of the Ring to be a "trilogy" of related books. It is, in fact, a one-book narrative that publishers wisely broke up into three volumes for economic and practical reasons.) With this structural concept in mind, Jackson doesn't resort to a Cate Blanchett-narrated summary of The Fellowship of the Rings to bring viewers up to date. Instead the director takes up the plot where Fellowship left off, with Hobbits Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) making their way to the evil kingdom of Mordor, where they must climb Mount Doom and destroy Lord Sauron's powerful Ring. Lost and tired, Frodo and Sam are wandering in the dangerous regions just outside Mordor when they are ambushed by Gollum (Andy Serkis), a twisted and tormented creature that had once been a Hobbit-like creature until, centuries ago, he found the One Ring. Enslaved and transformed by the Ring's power, Gollum lives only for the possession of "the precious." After a brief scuffle with Frodo and Sam, Gollum is apparently tamed and reluctantly agrees to take the two Hobbits to the Black Gate of Mordor. Meanwhile, the rest of the now broken Fellowship follow separate paths. Frodo and Sam's fellow Hobbits Merry and Pippin (Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan) have been captured by Uruk-Hai who serve the traitorous wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee). They are being taken to Isengard, where Saruman has built Orthanc, one of the titular Two Towers (the other being Sauron's Barad-Dur in Mordor). There, the evil White Wizard hopes to get his hands on the One Ring. Pippin and Merry are seemingly doomed unless Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the Elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) can catch up to their captors and rescue them. Of course, events intervene and things become far more complicated as the War of the Ring begins. Saruman strikes first at the kingdom of Rohan from without and from within. His armies of Orcs and Wild Men attack villages in a violent rampage of sword, wargs and fire. Meanwhile, King Theoden (Bernard Hill) has been weakened by Saruman with the aid of Grima Wormtongue (Brad Dourif); the once powerful warrior king is a half dead shell of a man who can barely lift his head while sitting on his throne. But all is not lost, for Gandalf (Ian McKellen), thought to have perished during his battle with the Balrog in the mines of Moria, has returned, and although there will still be many challenges for the Fellowship to overcome, hope still lives on in Middle Earth. Jackson, along with co-writers Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Stephen Sinclair, did take creative liberties with Tolkien's established storyline, but not to the film's detriment. Now that the expository material has been dealt with in The Fellowship of the Ring, the movie seems less ponderous and a bit more action oriented. The introduction of Rohan's shield-maiden Eowyn (Miranda Otto) adds poignancy to the romantic subplot of Aragorn and Arwen (Liv Tyler), and we clearly see the effects of the Ring's power on Frodo. Also notable are the special effects, particularly the CGI renderings of Gollum. Taking their cue from actor Serkis' amazing performance, the computer artists create a totally believable digital character. Imagine a malignant and insane Dobby from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and multiply that image by a factor of 100, and you have Gollum. The result is a totally believable character with all the shadings of a well-written role. The Helm's Deep battle sequence that is the films effects centerpiece is equally impressive and rivals anything the effects wizards at Lucasfilm have created for the Star Wars prequels. The New Line Home Entertainment DVD (in both Wide Screen and pan and scan formats) contains the original theatrical version (the Extended Edition is due in November 2003), with English audio tracks in Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround Sound and Stereo Surround Sound, English subtitles and closed captions, and Spanish subtitles. The second disc contains an assortment of extra features, the best one being "The Long and Short of It," a short film directed by actor Sean Astin.
Rating:
Summary: Number 2
Review: I know you all are going to kill me for giving this movie a 4. But hear me out. The movie was great, and a whole lot better than the first. The war scenes seems to be picking up, and the graphic are unbelieveable. However, near the end the movie kept on switching scene from the forest of trees to the war scene. It made me want to watch it, then when the forest came, it slowed down my heart. That was very irritating.
Rating: 
Summary: What is this ...
Review: I am just kidding. This movie is so good what does my review even matter. This movie already won a HUGO AWARD. so did that last one. Christ!!!!!! is it my life's dream to write a noval, or screen play to a movie that wins a Hugo award.
OK Look let me put it this way. This movie gets SIX stars buy me. ANYTHING that wins a HUGO award is game in my book. At this point in life the only books I read are books that won either\or the nebula award or the HUGO award. Well this moive won\WILL win the award. What else do you need. HUGO means BEST OF THE BEST OF THE BEST of the BEST. christ!!!!. GET this movie. are you joking how could you NOT LIKE IT. EPIC stories are the thrid reason hummans where put on this earth. just so you know the first reason we were put here was to figure this BALL of earth out, the second is succeed to our greastest potentical using the formentiond info, and the third is to create GREAT fiction\art\imagniation. This movie does that as if god commanded the crew to do so.......
Rating:
Summary: One Ring, Two Towers
Review: Even as the extended version of The Two Towers is readied for release in a 4 disc DVD set, since I didn't get the chance to see it during its initial theatrical run, I had to rent the 2 disc set to catch up. For one reason or another, I have never read the other books, beyond the first one Based on J.R. R.Tolkien's epic tale, The Two Towers picks up imediately where The Fellowship ended and continues the story. Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his friend Samwise (Sean Astin) are headed for Mordor to stand against evil. The duo enlist the help of the sneaky Gollum and his good alter ego Smeagol (both voiced by Andy Serkis) as their guide. This, as Saruman's (Christopher Lee) army surrounds the other members of the Fellowship, in the hopes of obtaining The One Ring, and making Saruman ruler of Middle Earth. Directed once again by Peter Jackson, The Two Towers may have a lot of special effects, but at no time, do they overshadow the film's story. Take Gollum, he is a CGI creation, but thanks to Andy Serkis he blends in seemlessly and is "real" enough. The human cast, once again, makes it work. Unlike a certain series of prequels, these performances, are far from wooden or emotionless. Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, and Ian McKellen, are all back and up to the challenge. The production matches its predecessor and then some. I would have to say that I even enjoyed the theatrical cut of Towers more than I did the theatrical version of Fellowship The extras on disc two are really only meant to wet your whistle for the 4 disc set. The best bonus material for the 2 disc set includes a ten minute look at the Return Of The King, a sneak peek of the film's extended cut, actor Sean Astin's short film, The long and the short of it and a look behind the scenes and the featurette "Bringing Gollum To Life" There's more but I'm sure it will look better as part of the other set. Theatrical trailers, a "Gollum's Song" music video by Emillana Torrini and exclusive DVD-ROM content top it all off. I certainly recommend The Two Towers, but rent the 2 disc set, and spend the money later on for its extended cut
Rating: 
Summary: Two Towers In Three Hours
Review: TWO TOWERS IN THREE HOURS Gee whiz, this sure was some movie! Action, adventure, pathos, violence, kissing--you name it, Two Towers has got it. I am so impressed by this masterpiece that I think somebody should turn it into a book. It might sell very well.
(I've heard that there already is a book called "The Two Towers," written in the 1940s by some Oxford philologist named, I think, Tolkien. But Peter Jackson need not worry about using the same title for a book based on his movie. Nobody who has read Tolkien's book, and seen Jackson's movie, will ever confuse the two.) Two reviews for the price of one: Review for people who have never read Tolkien, and don't intend to: This beautifully-photographed adventure film should delight you no end. The exciting events, the constant shifting from one perspective to another, the courage of the heroes, and the hilarious antics of that noted zany, Gimli the Dwarf, should wring the withers and lift the spirits of young and old alike. You may find the portrayal of Frodo Baggins (by Elijah Wood) a little, um, wooden: he excels at standing still and staring unblinkingly while trying to make up his mind to actually DO something. (He's also very good at falling down. His belly-flop into the Dead Marshes is especially impressive.) But he contributes greatly to the movie, by taking the concept of the "reluctant hero" to new and hitherto undreamed-of heights.
See the film, by all means. Those special effects will just knock your socks off, yessirree! Review for those who love Tolkien's masterpiece: Take two aspirins and watch it. The opening will please you; then it's all downhill. You may feel angry at first, but eventually you'll probably start giggling. Did you know that Gimli was from Scotland? Listen to that accent grow! (At one point he even calls Aragorn "laddie.") Did you know that Aragorn fell off a cliff into a river and disappeared for several days? Did you know that Théoden was a zombie, his body literally possessed by Saruman? Did you know that several hundred elves came to help the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep--where Théoden had moved the entire population of Edoras? Did you know... but why should I spoil this chef-d'oeuvre further, by giving away its innumerable "improvements" on Tolkien? You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll cringe, you'll squirm, you'll wince (at the 200th close-up of Frodo's wide-eyed face). You certainly won't watch it twice, except for giggles. It's much worse than the first film. Envoi:
I did find myself wondering what Peter Jackson does in his spare time. Perhaps he writes improved versions of Mozart's symphonies, or touches up Rembrandts, or takes a chisel and enhances Michelangelo's David. I must admit I am very eagerly awaiting Part III. It should be a riot. Can we start a contest to predict how Jackson will end his epic? Based on what I have seen so far, I think that Aragorn will be living in a ménage à trois with Arwen and Eowyn; Frodo will become a mannequin in a shop window (since he is already almost indistinguishable from one); Gimli will get a job as a slapstick comedian at a nightclub in Minas Tirith; and Gandalf will become a full-time exorcist ("Begone, Saruman!"). You'll enjoy making your own guesses after you've seen this travesty. (What a pity it is that poor old Professor Tolkien couldn't think up all the neat things that Mr. Jackson has put into this wonderful film!) PS - Contrary to what some reviewers have said, it is not impossible to transfer a literary masterpiece to the screen without ruining it. Read Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, then watch the BBC series. Read Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, then watch the movie. It can be done. But not by Peter Jackson. He is much too great a creative artiste to allow his brilliance to be stifled by the writings of a mere genius. Namárië.
|
