Rating: 
Summary: Breathtaking in scope
Review: On this, Peter Jackson's interpretation of "The Two Towers", by J.R.R. Tolkein the overall quality of the cinematography is excellent. The incredible cast and affects truly light up Middle Earth, and the magical splendor of Tolkein's world is done justice by filming it in the natural pristine beauty of New Zealand.Being something of a 'purist' in regards to this trilogy, having read and reread it several times, I did find a few of the changes frustrating. . . namely the role that the elven army plays at Helms Deep. The fact that mankind is on its own in this war is an essential point, and I still feel that it was an unnecessary change. That, and during some of the exceptional battle scenes I felt the "comic relief" actions of Gimli the dwarf to be rather absurd. It's a serious adult movie, and I found his silliness to fit poorly with the dire events occuring in the plot, as well as the nature of his character. That being said though, it is clear that Jackson and the cast spared nothing in the pursuit of excellence for this film, and I am not so fanatical that I cannot accept the fact that the director may have his own vision of how to fulfill the story. All verdicts are temporary, of course, until the final chapter is released in December, but "The Two Towers" can stand on its own as one of the rare and very REAL achievements of cinema in the new millennium.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent. You may, however, wait for the Extended Version
Review: A most enjoyable adaptation of Tolkien's books. I liked the first film after I initially viewed it at the theater, but after watching it again on DVD I grew to love this film. The Two Towers made me feel the same after viewing it at the theater. I thought it was good, and was just slightly annoyed at a change or two from the original book. I'm not a purist, and after seeing it on DVD for the second time I believe I will come to love this film too. Jackson does such a wonderful job telling this mid-part of the story that I can forgive his deviation from the letter of the book (except maybe Aragorn fall). I still feel that the extended version of this film will be, like the first, a better film. If it is, it will pace itself much better, and flesh out the story to enhance the viewer's movie experience.
I gave the extended edition of Fellowship to a non Tolkien fan friend, and he said he felt a bit cheated that the theater version wasn't as good as what was on the version I had given him.
If you enjoy watching a great film again and again, you'll not be disappointed in this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent, if different, vision of Tolkien's masterpiece
Review: I loved this film, as well as the book. They're different experiences, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to compare the two detail for detail. That said, director Peter Jackson made some choices I probably wouldn't have - The Elven archers, for instance - but I don't necessarly think those choices were wrong, because those differences make the film experience distinctly different from reading the book. I highly recommend the film, as well as the book.
Rating:
Summary: Fellowship was better, but I'll take what I can get...
Review: I've read several of the reviews, and the one thing noone has mentioned is the way Sam and Frodo's relationship is portrayed. In the book (and I know now you are calling me a purist), Frodo and Sam love each other dearly. Sam is like a father or big brother to Frodo. This is an intense love and desire to protect that I think the movie misses entirely. Frodo is at times portrayed as downright mean to Sam, I admit at times he was firm in the book when he rebuked Sam for his treatment of Gollum but in the movie you don't see that "everything I am doing I am doing exclusively for you" attitude that is so obvious in the original writing. Sam was by Frodo's side, not because Galdalf said so, but because he was worried about his friend. While I agree with the "purist" reviews and wish that so much of the storyline had not been changed to "more interesting" fighting scenes, I will happily view this film again and again and be happy with what Tolkien I can get. I still appreciated Fellowship much more due to the close adherence to the original storyline. I have to thank Peter Jackson for bringing to the screen the personification of what I had for so many years been viewing in my imagination and doing it so well that I could honestly say it could have been my imagination I was seeing (this is especially true of Aragorn, ooohh baby!) I went to the midnight showings of Fellowship (which I left with a tear in my eye) and Two Towers (which I left wondering if maybe I should have just gotten a good night's sleep) and I will be present for the midnight of Return of the King, but this time I will be much more guarded in my expectations.
Rating:
Summary: Lord of the Rings Two Towers
Review: Good action, Its hard to put the books to movie but they are giving it a try. A little hurried / If you have read the books You would be disppointed But give it a try its worth watching. Only problem and complaint I have is with the music on both dvd's that drowns out the dialog!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Has to be the worst movie ever!!!
Review: This movie was SOOOOOOO Not worth buying, seeing, or renting!!!
The only reason I gave it one star was for the special effects. They were very well done! But the movie itself is so far off from the books that I am in doubt as to whether I will even see the third one even at a $1.00 theater! I know that film makers can't follow the book exactly but they could have at least gotten a few things right. In the book when Frodo and Sam were caught by the men from Gondor they were released from there. They never went with them anywhere else. What is this malarkey about going to see Boromir's father? And what's this about having to trick the Ents into going to war? Yes they debated for several days in the book, but never had to be tricked.
All in all a complete waste of time. If you really have to see this movie, go rent it from your local grocery store where you can get it for $1.00 for 5 days. I wouldn't spend any more than that.
Rating:
Summary: better than any movie in years Purist go jump in a calderan!
Review: This movie is better than the majority, if not all movies made since the making of Star Wars Return of the Jedi (1983) everything(fantasy/sci-fi wise) since has been frilly cheap hollywood B. S. & corny dialogue. Lord of the Rings(both movies) are magical and beautiful and well written and acted. For you who are knocking the "Purists" I wouldn't waste my time on those geeks. Thier opinion means nothing. Dungeons and Dragon nerds are not the ones to rate a movie!
I don't let some geek tell me how to make it, watch it, or play it!
Two Towers is much better than the first(although the first was very good) and tells the deeper elements of the story, whereas the first mainly introduced the characters. Gollumn's internal conflict was the best part of all, good is not always good, Gollumn isn't totally evil. The Battle was excellent as well with Aragorn at the front and countless warriors and clever fighting moves. The only mar was that elves live longer than humans and Aragorn would be elderly but Aowen would go on eternal. How can you love someone that doesn't age when you do? I do not own the DVD, but I have seen the movie and can rate it somewhat accurately(it IS the movie that counts, not the extras). Go see it in the theater again but as for the DVD's wait for the final release of the LoR trilogy and collect all of the DVDS at once!
Rating:
Summary: Great on the Retake
Review: I wasn't going to buy or rent TTT until the extended version in November. When I saw the film in the theater, I wasn't as impressed as I had been with Fellowship. I was wowed, true, but something seemed to be missing. Well, I'm glad I broke down and bought the DVD. I couldn't help myself. After watching TTT a second, and then a third time, I really grew to appreciate the scenry, special effects and costuming... in short, the art. Really, I should write: ART! From the acting, the digital effects, model work, make-up, score, costuming, and sound effects, this movie truly did make history... no matter what the critics or Tolkien purist snobs might think. This was a movie above any other movie, in my humble opinion. I still think there was something missing, though. However, after watching the preview for the extended version, I realized that PJ had to remove a lot of material, and that missing material (I'm pretty sure) will fill in that gap. What was missing was some important character development, especially Faramir. I too thought on first inspection that PJ handled Faramir a bit unfairly, but I'm sure this was only because of the editing process. As far as the "purists" go... I've read the LotRs once every year every since seventh grade (which makes for about 22 times, but who's counting?), the Silm more than a dozen, BoLT twice, UT three times, and HoME once (if you don't know what those acronyms mean that's alright; that just means you aren't a hopeless geek). You "purists" shouldn't have been expecting the books. Really, what movie based on a book follows the book to the letter? How can a movie do that? While PJ's interpretation isn't exactly according to how I imagined Middle Earth, and while he may have added a few surprises of his own, his vision of Middle Earth and these characters (even Faramir) were fair to Tolkien's spirit, and that's the best for which one can hope. A movie only fails the original work of literature if it does violence to that work of literature. PJ certianly did not. I hope that by these films there will be an even wider and more diverse audience of Tolkien fans--new Tolkien fans that won't throw around the word "purist" like so many Middle Earth Nazis.
Rating: 
Summary: Films aren't like the book
Review: I know the film can't follow the book but it changed too much, even the animated version was able to follow the book alot closer than this one. This film changed the characters a bit much also especially Faramir. Yes I agree films can't follow the books too closely but this one went further than the rest. Yes it was a good film if you hadn't read the book especially the effects. I don't care how Pippin removed his broach, teeth or hands but changing whole battles as at Helms Deep, where they did have warriors not just old men, women and children. Elves didn't need to be there to make the battle. I will not be going to see the next film until it comes out on pay-per-view and I'm feeling curious.
Rating:
Summary: much improved, still needs work
Review: I read the trilogy when I was a teenager (a long time ago) and absolutely HATED the first movie. waited for DVD, and with low expectations rented "Two Towers." I was agreeably surprised. The characters have a little more character, the battle scenes are at least VISIBLE (unlike "Fellowship" where half the time battles were black screen with grey shadows, impossible to know what was going on). They did a pretty good job of creating something that looked large scale. That said, there were two things that still really set my teeth on edge: (1) the color affectation. Don't understand why moviemakers think it is cool to do really weird things to the color. I realize that the theme of the movie is "dark", but the color is so bleached that they may as well have filmed it in black and white. And the other elements of the film should create enough atmosphere that we should not need the perpetual twilight to understand that the world is "dark." WE GET IT, OK?? Over the time covered by the movie, the sun should have come out once or twice. Even the "lightest" scenes, in Rohan, looked like northern scotland on a rainy day. (2) CHOIR OF ANGELS: how impossibly hokey, all that "AH - Ah!" ing by what sounds like a choir of angels lost from "The Ten Commandments". It is so annoying I felt like turning the movie off every time. Stick with the pseudo - Celtic motif, or other less intrusive "this is a holy moment" music; these angels are really awful.
|
