Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

*MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD*

 

Well, it's been about 4 hours now since I've left the AMC Cinema and my heart is still beating a lot faster then normal. I think I may still be in shock of what I saw. What I saw was a perfect film. If I was a book purist I'd be pissed right now because many parts of the movie delve away from Tolkiens story but this is a movie review and this movie is quite simply one of the finest things ever put on screen.

 

Around one year ago I fell in love with the Lord of The Rings books, thanks to the Fellowship of the Ring movie. The lands, the creatures, the cultures, I was hooked. This is a review that has been a year in the making since I first laid eyes on Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn and many others. Hope you enjoy it.

 

The Good

 

The Effects and Landscapes- Two words: Fucking Amazing. From the opening shots of Gandalf falling through a hole in the cavernous emptiness under the Bridge of Khazad-Dum following the Balrog to the the dark dales of Fangorn Forest to the spectacle that is Helms Deep, this is quite simply the best looking movie I have ever laid eyes on. The location scouts for Peter Jackson all deserve their own individual Oscars for finding locations around New Zealand that make you believe you are in Middle Earth.

 

Helms Deep- Believe the hype. The best battle scene in the history of cinema, bar none. This motherfucker is in your face, bloody, loud and full of carnage. It is also beautiful, personal and emotional for many involved. Very rare is an action scene that can combine both of those elements but the battle of Helms Deep does just that. From the death of Haldir to the final appearance of Gandalf and the Riders of Rohan, the whole thing top to bottom may just be 40 of the finest minutes ever put on film.

 

Gollum- And the best supporting actor goes to Andy Serkis for Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers. If there is any justice in the world then those words will be uttered come March of 2003. Gollum is the most believeable CGI character that we've ever seen, mainly thanks to the hard work and effort of the aforementioned Mr.Serkis. What a task it must have been for him to be there every day on set, knowing that nobody in the theatre will see his face. I suppose that is why he pours his entire soul behind Gollum's thin skin and large blue eyes. You HAVE to believe that there is a soul behind this CGI character, that he is much more then he appears. The scene involving Gollum buried in a corner confronting himself about Frodo's treachery will break your heart in pieces. Bless you Andy Serkis.

 

The Death of Haldir- As mentioned earlier, this takes place during the massive scene that is Helms Deep. Even though Haldir is never in the book, his prescence in the movie is welcome as he leads a march of Lothlorien Elves to Helms Deep to aid King Theoden. It is here that he meets his doom, falling victim to the axe of an Uruk-Hai. Haldir is a very likable character and it would be very easy for Peter Jackson to have clicheed this death with tears and screaming and such. But he doesn't. Elves are immortal and can only die in battle or of a broken heart and the death of Haldir remains true to the way of Elves. The look on actor Martin Csokas face isn't one of pain, or sadness, or even death itself. It's a look that seems to say "Wow......so this is what it's like for humans." He is stunned beyond stunned that he is actually gone and it works wonders for such a small part of the film.

 

The Ents Storming Isengard- I can't really say much about this other then there may never be as cool a visual in film as this baby. Truly must be seen to be believed.

 

The Bad and Ugly

 

There is nothing in this movie that I can really classify as bad and ugly, just problems that arose from my knowledge of the book. Some questions/comments.......

 

- When did Faramir become such a dickhead? The Faramir I remember from the books was kind and strong but never bitter or evil.

- What was the harm in having the ents decide on their own to storm Isengard without the hobbits help?

- Was is nescessary for Theoden to be posessed by Saruman?

- Where was the love for Eomer? This guy was one of my favorite characters in the whole book series and he gets maybe 10 minutes of screen time here.

- Why change the ending of Helms Deep? For those of you who haven't read the books, Gandalf does leave them but instead of going out to rouse the Riders of Rohan he journeys to Isengard to find the ents and takes a walking forest with him to Helms Deep where they entangle the army of orcs on the run. Now THAT would be something to see.

 

I just checked my heart and it's still beating fast. Bravo Peter Jackson. Bravo New Line Cinema. Bravo WETA Workshop. I don't doubt that I'll see this film many times in the future and enjoy it just as much as I did tonight.

 

5 Stars. (As if you hadn't guessed.)

 

The Lord

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Booooo. I really don't get where all the love is for these movies. They're hollow fantasy with weak, weak script-writing, awful "comic relief," and a lot of really, really poor choices in layout. The "20 Minutes with ELVES!" in the middle was horrible, the climax after climax after climax in the final act became dry, dull, dragged out, and not even too long--just poorly composed. Keeping all those independent plot threads moving and progressing throughout the film is admirable; doing it well would have been even more admirable. Some stuff I disagree/agree with you on:

 

The best battle scene in the history of cinema, bar none.

 

Uh-uh. Any scene from The Seven Samurai or Ran is better than this, among others. Good writing + really great actors = superb characters = I give a shit about the battle scenes beyond "oh man, that is beautiful to watch." I will agree that it was really great technically, and just wish that I had any point of reference to any character beyond the main three of the Fellowship, who themselves weren't even very compelling.

 

Gollum is the most believeable CGI character that we've ever seen, mainly thanks to the hard work and effort of the aforementioned Mr.Serkis.

 

Absolutely. I could watch a movie entirely about Gollum and wouldn't care if it were 3 hours long itself.

 

Haldir is a very likable character

 

So his name was Haldir? And he said more than three lines? It's this crap that I consider weak writing, same problem I had with the first movie: blah blah, here's a character, I'm supposed to care because he's leading the elves, and oh he gets an axe in the head, dramatic music, slowdown. All I got on the actor's face was "Shit, there's an axe in my head," and I think it was ridiculous that this guy got an orchestral swell, as if he was at all critical or if his performance or part was at all compelling. Weak writing here; a cliched attempt to force caring on the audience because you couldn't do it in the rest of the script.

 

That said, I *did* like this a lot more than the first. With characters already established and the story set in motion, the generally bad screenwriting isn't as noticeable and has a lot of background and momentum already built into it. Though the second LOTR book is, in writing, mostly little more than a setup and transition piece between books 2 and 3, this film had a much more important feel about it. But let's get one thing straight: the writing was abhorrent, the "comedy" generic, and all the "it has begun" and "we are now truly at war" and "so our fates collide today" and such bullshit during all the battles was irrepressibly groan-worthy.

 

But it is an improvement. If the first LOTR is a 4 (out of 10), this is perhaps a 6, maybe a 5.5. Like I said before, the best performance comes from Gollum, whose actor crafts the most interesting character in the whole film. Great effects on Gollum as well--finally, a fully CG character who doesn't stand out in brutally retarded fashion a la Jar Jar "I Eat Ten Dicks" Binks. The battle of Helms Deep is as wonderful as advertised (at least in terms of technical wizardy), dwarves remain lame throughout time, and seeing the Ents actualized into a form that doesn't look ridiculous and comes off almost exactly how I'd want it rules the fucking school and will probably be my lasting memory of this film.

 

Aside, of course, from the fact that there were at least three moments in the film when I expected Sam and Frodo to just start tonguing the living daylights out of each other.

 

This is decent entertainment, and I guess it what was worth the six bucks just for the technical wizardy and the great design on the Ents and Gollum, but I'll never watch it again unless it happens to be on free TV. I'll watch Raiders of the Lost Ark again and again when it comes down to adventure over stuff like this.

[Guest B-X]

You know what really gets me? I was at theonering.net , and I caught a review from a guy who acted like Peter Jackson had just raped him.. in the ass! With a black steel dildo no less. It's ridiculous the lengths some of these folks go to see this film, and when it comes out, they are fucking APPAULED that "Frodo didn't touch the ring in the Dead Swamp in the book!!~!!!!".

 

Fucking relax people. It's a fucking movie.

 

PS. And before any of you jump on me for being an ill-informed, unwashed sheep, I've read all the LOTR books, plus Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, so I can imagine where some of these guys are coming from, but still, damn yall. Damn.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

When it comes to movies, some people are never happy. Especially the elitist snobs.

[Guest J*ingus]

Minor details I don't care about, like the various little changes in the first film. But when they're completely inventing important plot points (the battle with the warg-riders and its deceiving aftermath, half a fucking hour of Elven flashbacks, Faramir's 180? character turn from the book, tons of changes to Helm's Deep, a different stopping point) it does make me wonder what they were thinking.

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

I agree w/ Jingus. I'm not a book elitist, I've read them and love them nonetheless. I can relate to people getting all pissed about them though, because everybody has something in life that they hold very dear to them and it pisses them off when they see it getting changed or manipulated from the original. For some people out there, this thing is Lord of The Rings.

 

The elven flashbacks probably bothered me the most out of all of the errors/changes (and there were lots more then what I mentioned.) We could've seen another 20 minutes of Helms Deep action of 20 minutes of Treebeard or 20 more minutes of Gollum. I really don't know who P.J was trying to please with the elven scences, as I can't think of anybody who is gonna go see the movie for it's romantic value. They did the same in the first one and it didn't bother me so much but they really tried to shove it down your throat here.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

::shrug:: I last read the books about 7 or 8 years ago, so I didn't remember too many of the "off" details, just a general sense of things. I just didn't like it because I thought it was a technically brilliant film with a weak, weak infrastructure.

[Guest El Satanico]

I just know whenever i see Gollum i will now be thinking of Butters...damn you Matt and Trey!

[Guest RobJohnstone]

This move was great. Normally I would like to watch a film before I give it such credit but, after one viewing I can safely say that this movie will find it's way into my top 20 favorites of all time. It was so good, it makes the fellowship look bad.

 

--Rob

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I gotta disagree.

 

I liked the film, I did, but I can't say that it was 'great'. There are too many errors and misplaced scenes in it. And no, I have not read the books.

 

I couldn't help but watch the scene where Legolas, Gimli and Aragon are on the chase for Merry and Pippin with wonder. And not because the scenery was awe-inspiring - but because the camera angles and shots and cuts and all that jargon was fucked up. The whole film seemed like Jackson shot too much and was trying not to waste anything. This led to unnecessary film being used which made for some very inconsistant shots and scenes. (Forgive me for my wording, I am not, nor ever will be a film major and am trying to convey my thoughts in a cinematic context because my major gripe is in this area.)

 

And because Jackson put so much effort into this, and it is such a gigantic task, he expects us to judge the film on a whole rather than the "minor details". Over the past week or two my appreciation for Vanilla Sky has grown by leaps and bounds; "the little things, there is nothing bigger" is one of the central elements of the film and it is reflected through-out. Everything gets wrapped up in a nice tidy package in the end and every time I watch it I discover something new and my appreciation for it grows. The Two Towers seemed to have very little, if none, of these traits.

 

Which is not to say that I was unsatisfied, as I was. However, it was only the last hour or so which really did it for me.

 

Another gripe I have is with Character development. In Fellowship... they established the characters quite nicely, and I cared about their quest and their trials and tribulations and troubles throughout middle earth. I didn't really care about them in this one.

 

I didn't care about Frodos troubles with the ring. Maybe it was the camera shots, maybe it was the acting - but it didn't interest me.

 

I didn't care about Aragons love life.

 

I didn't care about the return of Gandalf like I cared about his death.

 

I didn't care about Merry and Pippin.

 

I didn't care about Sam.

 

I didn't really care about middle earth in general up until the final battle scene where the scope and importance was put into perspective and it felt like they actually COULD lose.

 

I cared a lil bit about Treebeard, and Gollum was the most interesting character in the film. It's odd to say that the characters I cared for the most were Computer Generated. Aragon was played to monotonous up until the battle at helms deep (where it seems everything was 'stepped up'. The last hour or so totally redeemed the film in my eyes) and his relationship with Theoden could have been a bit better (since it reflected the Frodo/Gollum storyline).

 

Speaking of which the Smeegle/Gollum scene was just horrible. Gollum is what Frodo might become. Gollum is a tortured soul corrupted by the ring. HIS stuggle is Frodos ultimate struggle and therefore a central theme of the film. He SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN A COMEDIC ROLE. This can all be blamed on Peter Jackson as it was his cuts and his direction which made it that way - and certainly not the fault of the audience (even though I wanted to smack them for laughing at a serious and pivitol situation).

 

I found only a few funny scenes in the film, Gimli not being tall enough to see over the ledge was a gut-buster, and his struggles with horses was fun. Gimli and Legolas' rivalry was a high point for me, and I want those two starring in a sitcom on FOX ASAP. But most of it seemed so forced and misplaced. Like the scene where King Theodon tells Aragon that there is only one king and the screen cuts to Gimli drinking - that was just uncalled for as Aragons being king is another central theme in the film. Not everything can be light-hearted; in order to really become absorbed into the story and begin to CARE about their struggles and CARE about their quest, things have to be taken seriously. Which is not to say that comedic elements are not called for, but rather, they should flow naturally and not be 'quota'd' like they were in this film.

 

In terms of pacing, I have to say that it felt like 4 hours rather than 3. It was really choppy and never really found it's groove until the last hour and a half or so. To me, it felt like Jackson either did too much, or not enough to make this movie work.

 

I also felt that this story lacked heart. I found myself trying to give meaning to it. That Sauramon is Lucifer and that Gandalf is God and that Aragon is Jesus where the elves are pseudo-angels in this biblical struggle between good and evil and technology and man. Like I said, I never read the books and can't tell you the true meaning tolkien has tried to convey - I only formulate it's purpose through the film. So I can't help but wonder... What is this film about? And I don't think Jackson provides suitable answers or guidance toward those answers.

 

You know, watching LOTR TTT was alot like writing this review/response. I had a lot to write, but I didn't know what place to put my comments in or really what was the message that I was trying to convey. Hopefully it didn't seem as choppy as the movie did to me.

[Guest B-X]

Tolkein "despised allegory," that is, stories with purposeful symbolism intended by the author.

 

Plus, on the whole hiarchy of supernatural beings, Sauron is on the same level as Saruman and Gandalf, as they were all once "Ainur" whose sole purpose was to serve the Valar, the "angels" of Tolkeins world, so to say.

 

God, I'm such a nerd.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

You really did read the Silmarillion didn't you BX? That's the only place I remember that being mentioned (Unfinished tales aside}

 

I've read all the books Tolkein ever wrote and love them all. I try not to let the movies changes bother me (though I'm bitter about there being no Tom Bombadil)

 

I'm seeing LOTR: TTT tomorrow and I'm really looking forward to it.

 

The problem I think that Jackson had was that for Tolkein the hero's of the story weren't the standerd heros. It wasn't Aragorn who saved the land, everything would have been futile without the Hobbits.

 

But that's not what most audiences want to see, it's the swashbuckling adventurer not the small understated everyman they shell out the cash for.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Tolkein "despised allegory," that is, stories with purposeful symbolism intended by the author.

 

Plus, on the whole hiarchy of supernatural beings, Sauron is on the same level as Saruman and Gandalf, as they were all once "Ainur" whose sole purpose was to serve the Valar, the "angels" of Tolkeins world, so to say.

 

God, I'm such a nerd.

It's been a little while since I read the Silmarillion, but I don't believe this is totally acurate. The Istari (wizards) are introduced much later into the story, while Sauron is one of the Maiar, a servant of the Valar, who is corrupted into the service of Melkor very early on (in the first few chapters I believe he is mentioned). Please correct me if I'm off base (lord knows it's hard to get every detail correct with that book).

 

BTW, I shudder to think that someone will attempt a movie version of the Silmarillion someday. If you think they butchered LOTR...

[Guest redbaron51]

Do you actually think that they could fit a book into a 3 hour movie???

 

 

Then stop yer bitchin then...

[Guest B-X]

The Istari are Maiar, sent by the Valar to Middle-Earth after seeing that the threat of Sauron was so dangerous that the Valar couldn't sit back any longer without intervening.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Read the appendixs for LOTR I think it's covered in there.

 

Gandalf and the others show up after Sauron sets up shop in Mirkwood or something and succed in driving him out of there but he just goes to Mordor.

 

I only remember 3 wizards being mentioned, Gandalf,Saruamon, and That other dude R???? the brown.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Radaghast (sp) is the other Istari. Thanks for clearing that up BX, I must have blocked out the fact that they are Maiar because they didn't appear until far later in the story.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I Just watched the movie and despite MASSIVE changes to the story I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

 

SPOILERS

 

Gollum owned. He looked,talked,acted,moved exactly as I had always imagined him.

 

The problem with the movie is that they made a 3 hour movie when a 6 hour movie would barely have sufficed to capture all of Tolkien's wonderful story.

 

Everything that Gimli said was gold, and I thought that all the parts were skillfully played.

 

Some people have complained about Farimir's seeming change to a bad guy. But I don't see it that way. Farimir had a few moments in the book were he came off as wanting the Ring desperatly, and Jackson just took it and expanded upon it, and in the end Farimir proved his mettle by letting him go.

 

The scenery was amazing and all the CGI stuff was great.

 

Watching it in a full theater was amazing. People would laugh or gasp at strange moments, but it didn't feel strange because what was happening was they were seeing their fantasy played out on the screen, and whenever it fit their perception of the book it was a revelation.

 

The thing that must be remembered about Tolkien is he didn't write a book. He created a world.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

As far as Tolkien despising allegory, I don't know... I know his writing, but not much about the man personally.

However, Lord of the Rings is symbolically pretty close to World War II.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I don't think Tolkien intended it to. I don't doubt that there are simalarities to ww2 but then if you look hard enough you can find that anywhere.

 

The book was good vs. evil, which is how WW2 was percieved so of course people will compare the two.

 

Tolkien did despise allegory and I myself perfer not to compare it to real life as it diminishes the specialness of it.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

ACK! I'm sorry

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I also like to let the story stand on it's own. I think most stories are best appreciated without allegorical meaning, even stuff like Animal Farm.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

The film has a lot of Biblical elements in it. Afterall, it is explaining how everything came about, didn't it? About the rise of man and the disappearance of mythic creatures?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

If you want Biblical meaning go for the Silmarillion (SP).

[Guest Lord of The Curry]

Well, I'm going to see it again in a few minutes. I'm going to try and look at it strictly as a movie and ignore the book flaws and see if it makes a difference.

 

Hey, a question for anybody who's read The Simmirallion: Is it worth it? Will I love it just as much as LOTR? It's been sitting on my bedroom floor for 3 months or so now and I'm scared to pick it up.

[Guest J*ingus]

It's not exactly a "novel" per se, much more like one loooooong footnote about the backstory of LOTR.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I love it.

 

It's very interesting, and gives alot of info on the history of middleearth.

 

It's not as good as LOTR but it's still a classic.

[Guest DrTom]

The Silmarillion is probably the heaviest Tolkien read, but I still liked it. It fills in a lot of the backstory and answers a lot of questions. I'd recommend it only to Tolkien fans who enjoyed the trilogy and want to learn more about Middle-Earth.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

same thing for "Unfinished Tales"