Rating: 
Summary: Tolkien must be turning in his grave
Review: The media hype surrounding this film should be an indication of how laughably bad it is. TTT has to be one of the worst movies since Plan Nine From Outer Space. It is just a muddy plotless mess, full of cheesy special effects, lame wannabe dialogue, lookalike characters, and totally devoid of any character development. I've seen better films on the SciFi channel, and that isn't saying much.The only people who could possibly enjoy this are videogame addicts, or individuals who get an intellectual challenge out of Wheel of Fortune reruns. The only reason to watch TTT is Gollum, a hilarious yet surprisingly pathetic cross between a homunculus, George W. Bush, and Donald Duck. Next time, the producers should pick a real director to film the Rings series - someone who knows how to humanize tragedy. Maybe Julie Taymor ("Titus") or Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") will take the challenge someday.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Sequel Ever!
Review: As a sequel to The Fellowship of the Ring, this movie is awesome. However, the effect on the audience varies according to 2 types of veiwers: Tolkien fans, and regular moviegoers. I am a Tolkein fan, and my veiwpoint is this: The movie was great and held lots of action and emotion, but it diverted a lot from the book, which was somewhat dissapointing. To a normal moviegoer, the film would be great. It has a lot more humor than the first film (mainly jokes about Gimli's height), and Legolas performs some awesome stunts. However, if you look at it from Peter Jackson's veiwpoint, you can see how boring it could get, making the movie just like the book. The Two Towers is definitely a more fun movie and the diversions from the book (i.e.- Aragorn falling off a cliff) seem like nothing compared to the overall effect. The Frodo and Sam parts bring back the seriousness and danger to the movie. Overall, The Two towers is a great film, and Tolkein fans, watch out for The Return of the King!
Rating: 
Summary: A masterful accomplishment
Review: After Fellowship, I re-read the LotR Trilogy, digging it up from its place on the bookshelf for 30 years(!).. Visually, the film is a faithful recreation of Tolkien's imagination. As a two-year film project to maintain a seamless final product, the accomplishment is all the more impressive. I'm not a Tolkien purist, but one significant difference between the written and filmed version is the battle at Helm's Deep in Rohan--very little (relative) treatment in the book, but, I think, absolutely essential to develop the story on film. The portrayal of Gollum in the Two Towers is a masterpiece in itself, exactly the character you'd expect from his role in the books. Sam Gamgee's character is beautifully developed to set the stage for his evolution to the Return of the King. And for their parts, Bloom and Mortenson are on their way to great careers after their portrayals in this episode. It's sooo good to have Part 2 now in DVD, closing the first "cliffhanger" from memory. And, it is seamless, with flawless continuity. Why the films didn't clean up in the Academy Awards is beyond me. But then, they weren't filmed in Hollywood...
Rating:
Summary: Blind, Deaf and DUMB
Review: I, being of sound mind and body (I hope), do declare that I have seen TLOR : TWO TOWERS at the movies, and now on DVD in the privacy of my own home, without harm to myself or others. No long dead author was heard turning in his grave, nor did the World stop spinning as I unashamedly revelled in Peter Jackson's grand cinematic portrait of Middle Earth. The same goes for FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING - viewed without harm to mind or body. The world did not end, darkness did not fall, and the Gods did not strike me down. This time. All this and more may well have come to pass if the Tolkien PURISTS are to be believed. Their wails of despair echo through these reviews (infrequently), rising from the mire of joyous 5 star rave reviews like Ring Wraiths looking to score a labotomy. Knives are sharpened, poison pens are readied, all seeking the demise of the man who dared to breathe new life into Tolkien's vision - a vision that sadly came to fruition long before it was possible to bring it to life on the big screen. Beware the fanatics my friends, beware those that cannot accept that they are no longer alone, that their PRECIOUS literary masterpiece has been torn from their clinging hands and thrust into the light of day for millions to enjoy. Are they bitter, are they jealous, or has somone forgotten to tell them that its only a book? A fantastic book, a book so grand in its conception and ultimate telling that few rival it, but a book none-the-less. Sad but true. I've read TLOR and loved every page, every elgantly painted moment of imagination and yet I found the courage from somewhere to embrace the movies too, to accept the fact that they would not be entirely faithful to the Great Work, as if they ever could be. I used that most useful of our evolutionary assests, my brain, and came to find the truth of it all - that the movies are a separate entity unto themselves, and cannot - SHOULD NOT - be compared word of word, scene for scene with their printed forebears. Film studios don't have enough money to make a LOR movie that adheres exactly to the novels, nor would people have the courage required to sit through such a movie. Anyone that can't work this out - these so called "purists" - are as stated: Deaf, Dumb and Blind. Perhaps instead of fretting over how Peter Jackson (AKA GOD) has butchered their beloved masterpiece, they might want to crawl out of their dim dark caves, stand upright and face the REAL WORLD head on. Try it - go on, I dare you. Do I seem bitter, angry at the few and far between members of society that have decried Jackson's epic? Yes, I am. I admit it unashamedly. I try to be tolerant, I really do, but sometimes I just can't take it, and I have to vent my frustration with those among us that just don't understand that there are more important things in life other than whether or not Peter Jackson adapted TLOR word for word. On a more base level, and by way of a Public Health Warning, I also want to wring the necks of anyone whore DARES refer to Peter Jackson as an Aussie - for those of you who are geographically challenged (ignorant) or live in Hicksville USA, he's a New Zealander (we're the little slice of paradise - AKA Middle Earth - just to the east of Australia). The Aussies are responsible for those dreary Star Wars and Matrix sequels / prequels - shot by US directors I might add. We New Zealanders on the other hand, have only the LOR movies to be proud of, directed by one of our own. So, to my point. Purists be damned. These movies are just that - movies. Books are books, movies are movies. A literal translation of TLOR books to the big screen would be IMPOSSIBLE, so why the hell are people whining about it? Can't they just go and sit in a corner with all the Star Wars fans and scratch their eyes out like everyone else and pretend it didn't happen? My suggestion therefore, for those troglodites still clinging to a zealous, PURITANICAL view of Tolkien's vision: GET A LIFE!!! The movies will never surplant TLOR's place in literary history - how could they? What they do however accomplish, is to capture the essence of what Tolkien wrote about, the FEEL of good and evil, of Light and Dark. All that is good about Tolkien's work is reflected in Jackson's own, and if you can't look past the sometimes obvious liberties he's taken and see the soul of the movies, then I don't relly think you're a true Tolkien Fan. There's a good reason why the vast majority of people that have seen these movies have been ensnared by them. Its because they do capture what Tolkien envisioned when he wrote TLOR, and you can't help but feel that. The delivery might not be word for word, scene for scene, but the message is unaltered, and that's all that should matter to you. So, enjoy the LOR trilogy in print, at the Theater, or on DVD. Don't waste what time is owing to you on this world by quibbling over details. Watch, read, enjoy Tolkien however he comes to you. Be grateful, don't be petty and covetous of his work. It reflects only on you, after all. Now, where did I put my axe? It's Tolkien Purist hunting time! Tonight I'm eating man flesh!
Rating:
Summary: Simply astonishing!!!
Review: This is the second of three releases under the title, Lord of the Rings. Make sure when purchasing that you choose the widescreen version of the film as there is no real difference in the packaging. It says accross the top which version you are purchasing, make sure you have what you want. (widescreen) This is one film that is horrid if not seen in it's original intended format. I want to make this informative without giving away any plot points. The special features are excellent with a bonus short film by Sean Astin (Samwise). Several making of's and featuretts. The best feature is a 10 minute preview of the third installment, Return of the King. Due out in December in a theatre near you. This is not the version with the 43 minutes of additional footage, that will be coming out later in a four disc set. If you have read the books, you must see the film. If you have seen the film, you must read the books. There is nothing small about this movie or this series. It is simply gigantic. I highly recommend this DVD purchase, in widescreen)...
Rating:
Summary: True to the Tolkien Spirit
Review: Plenty of people have criticized Peter Jackson's The Two Towers movie because there are so many departures from the book, far more than in The Fellowship of the Ring. As a Tolkien fan for over thirty years, I too was dismayed at first by such interpolations as Aragorn's flirtatious moment with Eowyn over dwarf beards, or the repeated playing off of Gimli the Dwarf as the butt of numerous jokes. But then I came to realize that any written work, even one so sumptuous as The Lord of the Rings, faces numerous difficulties in translation to the screen, and that in Peter Jackson and his team, Tolkien's masterpiece has been fortunate indeed. The Two Towers is an extremely complicated work to film, split as it is between two different journeys, that of Frodo with Sam to Mordor and secondly the tangled stories of the remainder of the Fellowship. In the movie the scene shifts back and forth, sometimes rather abruptly, but in the end it smoothly finishes off at real turning points for all the characters. The settings are magnificent: the plains of Rohan, the tower of Orthanc, the deadly approaches to Mordor, Fangorn Forest, and the ravaged garden of Ithilien. The action fits the settings: huge battles and world changing decisions. The cast fits as well, most of the familiar characters from The Fellowship of the Ring return of course, but there are many new faces, among the most appealing being Theoden King of Rohan and his nephew and niece Eomer and Eowyn. As in The Fellowship of the Ring, some of the most emotional moments come when Tolkien's own words are used, my favorite being the final scenes when Sam and Frodo laugh about the tale of Frodo and the Ring and Samwise the Brave. That emphasizes how fortunate the books were to have been filmed by a group of true Tolkien lovers. The DVD contains quite a bit of interesting additional material on the making of the film, plus a peek at The Return of the King and another peek at the Extended Version, which will contain about 40 more minutes of material. This last feature is truly fascinating, with hints of additional scenes of Pippin and Merry with Treebeard, among others. But even if the only thing you watch is the theatrical release itself, this DVD is well worth the price!
Rating: 
Summary: NOT a "purist," but I still have issues
Review: This review contains some spoilers, so please don't read it if you have a problem with that. I am not a Tolkein "purist" in the sense that I feel that any time the movie leaves out something from the book it is a bad thing. I am fully aware of the task of translating such a complex, lengthy book into a movie. I am also fully aware that to do so, not only must some things be left out, but that things must also be changed. I don't have a problem with those concepts, and for the most part they have done a good job of overcoming these obstactles in these films. HOWEVER...
Some of the changes they have made in the film have not only been unnecessary from a time standpoint, they have also SERIOUSLY detracted from Tolkein's vision. This, I do have a problem with.
--The filmmakers seem to have a real problem with the concepts of nobility and honor. I guess they must think these traits would seem too unreal in the modern age. I can't think of any other reason for the deliberate reduction of these traits in the movies.
--The character of Aragorn has had much of his nobility removed. In the movies, he is portrayed as running from his role as king. This was not the case in the books, where he was merely waiting for the proper time for his ascension to the throne.
--In the movies, the battle of Helm's Deep happened because the people of Rohan were trapped there by the Orcs while they were running away from the fight. In the books, they were riding out to fight. So Theoden's nobility has also been diminished. He goes from being a hero to being a coward.
--In the movie, Elrond seriously criticizes Arwen for her decision to stay with Aragorn, then shows her eternally young while he ages and dies. In the book, she gives up her mortality to be with him. This is a more nobel sacrifice on her part, and Elrond is not nearly so petty regarding her choice. There are other examples, but I think these are enough to document the theme I see. None of these changes were necessary to make the story flow better. Indeed, I think they take something vital from the story. Other than these issues, I think they have been doing a superb job with the adaptations. The visual effects are astounding, and they have created a world that looks like Middle Earth should.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings- The Two towers
Review: This is the Best movie i've ever seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: A rebuttal to Carl Haas from a "practical purist"
Review: Some of Carl's points are well taken. The entire book can not possibly be captured in a 3 hour movie, nor will people want to sit through 15 hours of film. However, this story offers so much to choose from without deviation from the original storyline, that there is no reason to fabricate events that never happened in the book. - Why must Aragorn fall off a cliff in a battle that he was never actually in?
- Why was Faramir's decision changed from allowing Frodo to pursue his quest, to taking him to Gondor?
- Why did they make Frodo face the Nazgul and offer him the ring in Gondor, if he was never supposed to be there in the first place?
- Why did they change Faramir's personality to match his brother's when the whole point was the differences in their decisions? Boromir tries to take the ring while Faramir chooses to release it. Need I go on? I'm not saying that this was a bad movie or a failure, BUT it could have been much better if they followed the original story line within the time constraints. Rewriting parts of the story is unnecessary when you have such a wealth to events choose from.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie, but I have to be a "purist"
Review: DON'T GET ME WRONG!
I'll still take this movie over just about any other I've seen lately. I've met lots of people who never read the books, and I can understand why they like the movie just as it is. The effects are awesome without smothering the story, Gollum is perfect, and the whole thing does rock. But I do have to agree with a lot of what the "purists" are saying. Fellowship departed from the book in a lot of small ways, but only one of them (Aragorn's wishy-washy self-imposed exile) really altered the storyline, and they were probably done to establish the characters more quickly. The book had a lot of islands in the story (Tom Bombadil) that were removed without a loss. The Two Towers movie went a lot further with the creative license, and I think the storyline is hurt. I agree with keb that Faramir was completely hijacked, as were the Ents. In the book, they deliberated for days about fighting Saruman, but in the end, they _agree_ to. Had they not, no amount of well-intended trickery on the part of the hobbits would have changed their mind. They were meant to have personalities befitting ancient forces of nature: their minds move like a mighty river whose course does not change easily. Then there's how the movie ended. What was that? The book ends with Sam stuck in Mordor by himself, with Frodo a prisoner and in very bad shape. How perfect would that have been as a cliffhanger? To make matters worse, they took the time they saved by ending the movie "early" and blew it on a side plot about Aragorn falling off a cliff and coming back the next day. Not to mention inventing a conflict among Elrond, Arwen and Aragorn about their relationship (and embellishing the attraction between Aragorn and Eowyn). In the books, Elrond doesn't have a big problem with Arwen and Aragorn. He seems to think surrendering her elvish nature to wed Aragorn is fitting; the only involvement the Elves can have in the coming ages. His brother, after all, did the same thing thousands of years ago and became Aragorn's distant ancestor. The elves at Helm's Deep are annoying for the exact reasons laid out elsewhere: the Elves, as a faction, were "done" with Middle-Earth in that capacity. Saruman's possession of Theoden was also a little overdone. The book seems to imply a much more mundane sort of enfeeblement for Theoden; he was getting old and had lost his will to fight. Saruman's main involvement was to send Grima along to insulate him and keep him plied with bad advice. I wish they'd spent a bit more time on the aftermath of the battle at Isengard. The book's rendering of the tension in the air as Saruman trues to BS his way out of trouble with the major characters was really great. I don't think they did it justice.
| 
