The Two Towers

This time, there’s less J.R.R. Tolkien and more Peter Jackson—and that’s a good thing. While still hewing close to the storyline in this second installment of the “Lord Of The Rings” trilogy, Jackson emphasizes character development over Tolkien’s obsessions with myth and language and the results are far more evocative and immediate than the same events in the book. Jackson seems stubbornly determined to make a movie and not a mere representation of the novel, and as a result, there are liberties taken with the narrative (the book’s fans will occasionally be disoriented but will adjust) that are used to open up not only the cinematic possibilities but to provide credible character motivations that Tolkien could not or would not provide. (Minor characters dismissed simplistically in the book such as Wormtongue, well-played by Brad Dourif, here help give emotion to the story and move the tale along in a convincing fashion.) The film, which follows three separate plot threads, is almost all cliffhangers and non-stop action (culminating in the enormous battle at Helm’s Deep, which essentially comprises the final third of the film) and you’re left with the delighted impression that Jackson’s inspiration stems from serials and swashbucklers of the thirties as well as Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments”. Overall, there’s less balance than “The Fellowship Of The Ring”—this is out of Jackson’s control as the ruggedness of the terrain dictates the plot—and it’s relentlessly dark; but Andrew Lesnie’s fluid camera once again captures the majesty of Jackson’s larger-than-life vision and Grant Major’s production design situates wooden-hut villages and stone fortresses in perfect harmony with the mountainsides that figure so prominently. Enormously satisfying, this is another superb complement—without being an imitation—to Tolkien’s work and an outright cinematic triumph in its own right.

Having just come from seeing the Two Towers, I have to say it's really heartening to have some really great film making going on regardless of who is doing it, where, or why. I think even people who don't like the subject matter would nonetheless be astounded by the sheer scope and spectacle of the Lord of the Rings films so far. The epic look and feel of the Two Towers movie is just breathtaking, in my oppinion. I also think there is no substitute for seeing these films in the movie theater. I've seen RINGS on dvd and I just think the films are made to be seen bigger than life, the way they were filmed and conceived. Kudos to everyone who made this movie and the Lord of the Rings previously. This ought to give the Lucases, Spielbergs, and other 'grandiose' directors something to try and measure up to besides their previous catalogs! Go, Peter Jackson, Go!!

1) I still don't get the intensity in this movie of the inner conflict and the corruption of Frodo Baggins which I feel is key that I obtained from reading the book long ago.

2) The death of one of the King's sons isn't emotionally riveting because the son is never really given enough screen time to become attached to him and we only get to see the pain through the King's behavior.

3) The numbers of warriors in battle don't add up. I kept hearing 10,000 enemy warriors which seems to me a very small army for so vast an epic - most real battles in American and in world history were on the order of 100,000 not 2,000 or 10,000. I really was distracted by this figure.

Well, I have to give you the King's son thing, that's for sure. I didn't care at all about the King's son getting killed he was such a nothing character!

As for the the size of the army and so forth, well, I'll just stick with my "You go to the movies to be entertained" argument, which this movie certainly does. I guess I'll suspend disbelief for "good" films (I.E. ones I like) and tear apart the bad ones (the ones I don't like) mercilessly. Can't make me worse than the official critics out there!

Besides, it's WAY easier to hate the Eks vs. Severs of the world and rip them apart than the Lord of the Rings serices so far, which by comparison deserve but a slap on the wrist. Wait. I take that back. Both of these films in my oppinion deserve a standing ovation for effort and vision.

It's nice to know that somebody likes both Eks vs. Severs (8 out of 10 stars) and LOTR. There sure was a lot of effort and vision in both these movies. LOTR, a complete three movie package done at the same time, now that's innovative and money saving.

Saw The Two Towers today- glorious on an Imax screen.

This flick should have Oscars sewn up for cinematography, editing and SOUND. This was one of the best sounding films ever. My seat was rumbling...

*wincing* I've never read Lord of the Rings (i just don't like fantasy stuff) but this type of story is pretty damn interesting. I don't really care about the "ring" or "my precious" as that grim-looking Gollum calls it. I just wanna see more battles in this middle earth place. They were better than Braveheart's battles!

The costumes were a celtic's wet dream. I didn't read too much into the events presented. i just watched it as a virgin LOTR fan (the first film I really liked) and I know jackson is gonna bring down the house with Return of the King. This is a great great GREAT series of movies, and it deserves all it's revenue.

I watched the shoot of Ecks Vs. Sever in Vancouver BC last year when I was there. Lots of fake explosions were set off and detonated at the main city library...I saw the "stairwell chase" happen live!

Ummmm. Okay, yeah...that figure might seem a bit distracting, and while you're right most battles have been fought with more...you also have to take into account that this is NOT an Earth battle. This is Middle-Earth, a battle between Elves+Men and UrukHai+Orcs. Not only are they fighting with swords and sheilds and axes and arrows and torches (which can inflict a LOT of damage...but probably not as much as a gun and a grenade), but they are all supurbly trained warriors. Everytime I saw Legalos in a fight, he moved so fast and so accurately. And remember the scene when Gimli brags about killing two and Legalos was already up to fifteen? That says it all. And then there's the UrukHai, who are basically stronger, faster, a little smarter, and definitely even more brutal than their Orc cohorts. You pit so many skilled fighters against each other, it's going to take them all a LONG time to get to actually killing each other. And besides...10,000 is STILL a lot...as far as I'm concerned, that sounds like a reasonable average number of sodliers for any medieval campaign.
It's a good point, but...it didn't bother me too much. I still think the battle at Helm's Deep was greater than that in "Braveheart" or anything George Lucas can hope to conjure up.

*Note: Oh, BTW...George Lucas is that idiot who's doing those "Star Wars" movies...y'might've heard of him maybe?*

10,000 is large in comparison to the apparent 200 humans, or so, holding down Helm's Deep. Add in a few columns of elves and you're still outnumbered. The battle gains its theory of spectacle from the relative size of the armies, not necessarily from the size of the armies as compared to history. Hell, the Dirty Dozen had some pretty good battle scenes for its day, and there were only twelve men on one side there...

While the battle sequence at Helm's Deep was good, it suffered (I thought) from three things:

1) cutting away to Merry and Pippin and the Ents killed any momentum generated by the battle scenes themselves, even including the CGI-fest that was the Ents trashing Saruman's tower. (Am I the only one who though Saruman was sneering, Dick Dastardly-style, at the Ents when he was supposed to be panicking?)

2) the buddy character humor between Legolas and Gimli. Yeah, sure we need some humor. Everyone knows Star Wars rleied on Han Solo, which is why the latest Star Wars trilogy has been hollow. But dueling body counts? "Dwarf tossing?" Come on...

3) the ineffective humans. I know Aragorn is one of the only humans who can allegedly fight in all of Middle Earth (or so the first film would have us believe), and I know few of the men and children of Rohan were trained to defend themselves, but the king did a pretty poor job of motivating/commanding them, in my opinion. Sure, Aragorn's a great fighter, but for him to be able to slaughter wholesale dozens of orcs while other humans are getting mauled one by one? Shades of a G.I. Joe cartoon, wherein one Joe can hold off an entire Cobra base... *shiver*

Also, for appearing on the poster, the King's neice certainly played barely any part, other than as Aragorn's love triangle-interest. Having waved that sword around once, I fully expected her to actually do something with it. Next movie, I'm guessing.