Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ebert's Review of The Two Towers
Sun Times ^ | Ebert

Posted on 12/18/2002 10:02:14 AM PST by Sir Gawain

LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS / *** (PG-13)

December 18, 2002

Frodo Elijah Wood
Gandalf Ian McKellen
Aragorn Viggo Mortensen
Sam Gamgee Sean Astin
Pippin Took Billy Boyd
Arwen Undomiel Liv Tyler
Saruman Christopher Lee
Grima Wormtongue Brad Dourif
Galadriel Cate Blanchett

New Line Cinema presents a film directed by Peter Jackson. Written by Frances Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair and Peter Jackson. Based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. Running time: 179 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for epic battle sequences and scary images).

BY ROGER EBERT

With "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," it's clear that director Peter Jackson has tilted the balance decisively against the hobbits and in favor of the traditional action heroes of the Tolkien trilogy. The star is now clearly Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the hobbits spend much of the movie away from the action. The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.

The task of the critic is to decide whether this shift damages the movie. It does not. "The Two Towers" is one of the most spectacular swashbucklers ever made, and, given current audience tastes in violence, may well be more popular than the first installment, "The Fellowship of the Ring." It is not faithful to the spirit of Tolkien and misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books, but it stands on its own as a visionary thriller. I complained in my review of the first film that the hobbits had been short-changed, but with this second film I must accept that as a given, and go on from there.

"The Two Towers" is a rousing adventure, a skillful marriage of special effects and computer animation, and it contains sequences of breathtaking beauty. It also gives us, in a character named the Gollum, one of the most engaging and convincing CGI creatures I've seen. The Gollum was long in possession of the Ring, now entrusted to Frodo, and misses it ("my precious") most painfully; but he has a split personality and (in between spells when his dark side takes over) serves as a guide and companion for Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin). His body language is a choreography of ingratiation and distortion.

The film introduces another computer-generated character, Treebeard, a member of the most ancient race in Middle-Earth, a tree that walks and talks and takes a very long time to make up its mind, explaining to Merry and Pippin that slowness is a virtue. I would have guessed that a walking, talking tree would look silly and break the spell of the movie, but no, there is a certain majesty in this mossy old creature.

The film opens with a brief reprise of the great battle between Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Balrog, the monster made of fire and smoke, and is faithful to the ancient tradition of movie serials by showing us that victory is snatched from certain death, as Gandalf extinguishes the creature and becomes in the process Gandalf the White.

To compress the labyrinthine story into a sentence or two, the enemy is Saruman (Christopher Lee), who commands a vast army of Uruk-Hai warriors against the fortress of Theoden (Bernard Hill). Aragorn joins bravely in the fray, but the real heroes are the computer effects, which create the castle, landscape, armies and most of the action.

There are long stretches of "The Two Towers" in which we are looking at mostly animation on the screen. When Aragorn and his comrades launch an attack down a narrow fortress bridge, we know that the figures toppling to their doom are computer-generated, along with everything else on the screen, and yet the impact of the action is undeniable. Peter Jackson, like some of the great silent directors, is unafraid to use his entire screen, to present images of wide scope and great complexity. He paints in the corners.

What one misses in the thrills of these epic splendors is much depth in the characters. All of the major figures are sketched with an attribute or two, and then defined by their actions. Frodo, the nominal hero, spends much of his time peering over and around things, watching others decide his fate, and occasionally gazing significantly upon the Ring. Sam is his loyal sidekick on the sidelines. Merry and Pippin spend a climactic stretch of the movie riding in Treebeard's branches and looking goggle-eyed at everything, like children carried on their father's shoulders. The Fellowship of the first movie has been divided into three during this one, and most of the action centers on Aragorn, who operates within the tradition of Viking swordsmen and medieval knights.

The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me. I know the general outlines and I boned up by rewatching the first film on DVD the night before seeing the second, and yet I am in awe of the true students of the Ring. For the amateur viewer, which is to say for most of us, the appeal of the movies is in the visuals. Here there be vast caverns and mighty towers, dwarves and elves and Orcs and the aforementioned Uruk-Hai (who look like distant cousins of the aliens in "Battlefield Earth"). And all are set within Jackson's ambitious canvas and backdropped by spectacular New Zealand scenery.

"The Two Towers" will possibly be more popular than the first film, more of an audience-pleaser, but hasn't Jackson lost the original purpose of the story somewhere along the way? He has taken an enchanting and unique work of literature and retold it in the terms of the modern action picture. If Tolkien had wanted to write about a race of supermen, he would have written a Middle-Earth version of "Conan the Barbarian." But no. He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes. And now Jackson has steered the story into the action mainstream. To do what he has done in this film must have been awesomely difficult, and he deserves applause, but to remain true to Tolkien would have been more difficult, and braver.



TOPICS: Arts/Photography
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

1 posted on 12/18/2002 10:02:14 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I cant wait to see it. I bought the first one the day it came out. If the visual effects are half as good as the ones in LOTR, this one ought to be pretty good.
2 posted on 12/18/2002 10:08:15 AM PST by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Search under "LOTR" and you'll probably find some more reviews here. A Freeper saw it last night and did a bang up review. If you can't find it, flag me. It sounds like "must see" cinema and I loved the first. I won't miss this one either...
3 posted on 12/18/2002 10:11:59 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
If Tolkien had wanted to write about a race of supermen, he would have written a Middle-Earth version of "Conan the Barbarian." But no. He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes.

Ebert's ignorance of "The Ring" is exceeded only by a) his lack of perception; and b) his waistline.

4 posted on 12/18/2002 10:12:59 AM PST by Cincinatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
I was mostly impressed by how well the LOTR followed the book. I only read it once years ago, but the movie made me remember it. Yep, I cant wait to see it either,and thanks, Ill check out the review.
5 posted on 12/18/2002 10:14:27 AM PST by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ecurbh
FYI
6 posted on 12/18/2002 10:18:15 AM PST by Lil'freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.

Ha ha ha. Yeah, right. The battle scenes in the book were far from "gentle" and they pale compared to what's coming in the Return of the King.
7 posted on 12/18/2002 10:19:20 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
As Ebert half admits, he hasn't read the book, or he would know that in The Two Towers the action shifts from Frodo to Aragorn in the book as well as the movie.

Ebert is a lazy, ignorant reviewer with very little to say, as is obvious enough from this review. Basically his job is to say what is expected of him by the movie industry, but he doesn't do it very well.
8 posted on 12/18/2002 10:20:58 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Ebert's take on how Jackson produced J.R.R. T's work is irrelevent and should not have been mentioned. The "tubby reviwer" should stick to commenting on MOVIES, NOT how well or poorly a book was transfered to the big screen.
9 posted on 12/18/2002 10:23:02 AM PST by KantianBurke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
He's mad there aren't any queers.
10 posted on 12/18/2002 10:24:12 AM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Well, there was at least one, but his character wasn't.
11 posted on 12/18/2002 10:26:49 AM PST by Lil'freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
The details of the story--who is who, and why, and what their histories and attributes are--still remains somewhat murky to me.

Hey, Roger! Read the books! It's like someone complaining about not being sure about who is who in the movie "The Bible". A book is selective in the parts of the story it tells, hinting, by its omissions, at the much larger world that exists outside the narrative. A film made of the book has to be even more selective. It simply cannot mirror the book in detail. The way to get around the problem of an 80 hour long film is to expect those who want a deeper understanding of the story and action necessarily trimmed in the film to do a little work and read the book first.
12 posted on 12/18/2002 10:27:14 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
More reviews here. Right now there's 78 reviews, one bad, 77 good.
13 posted on 12/18/2002 10:31:16 AM PST by the_One_Neo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
"The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien."

Ebert is an idiot. There is simply no other rational explanation for that statement.


14 posted on 12/18/2002 10:34:39 AM PST by sinclair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
He is a Lefty with a fixation on his looking like a moral superior to the reactionary rabble. His review of "Fight Club" should be excerpted and posted as a guideline for deciphering his words. In reviewing FC he injected the word "Facist", but withdrew it coyly by mentioning that it could not be Fascist simply because the FC was integrated into a "multiracial" organization. Ebert is a hypocratical kook with an atrocious double standard towards those he views as moral inferiors, he is easily dislikable. I can see he was straining to paint TT as "Nazi" and my guess is that somewhere in his future writings we shall see he uses that term. BTW he is an Illinois casino king due to his wife (who is black, perhaps explaining his moral fanaticism) being a high powered Chicago attorney with connections.
15 posted on 12/18/2002 10:37:39 AM PST by junta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
The last third of the movie is dominated by an epic battle scene that would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien.

What a bald-faced moron. He obviously hasn't read Tolkien's account of the Siege of Gondor.

Then among the greater casts there fell another hail, less ruinous but more horrible. All about the streets and lanes behind the Gate it tumbled down, small round shot that did not burn. But when men ran to learn what it might be, they cried aloud or wept. For the enemy was flinging into the City all the heads of those who had fallen fighting at Osgiliath, or on the Rammas, or in the fields. They were grim to look on; for though some were crushed and shapeless, and some had been cruelly hewn, yet many had features that could be told, and it seemed that they had died in pain; and all were branded with the foul token of the Lidless Eye. But marred and dishonoured as they were, it often chanced that thus a man would see again the face of someone that he had known, who had walked proudly once in arms, or tilled the fields, or ridden in upon a holiday from the green vales in the hills.

Oh yes, the gentle Mr. Tolkien...;-)

(I actually can't wait to see this part!)

16 posted on 12/18/2002 10:38:00 AM PST by 2Jedismom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2Jedismom
I think Ebert's descriptions of Balrog and the Gollum are right on. HA!

Perhaps Jackson could have stayed true to the book by having Frodo use the Ring to win the battle of Helm's Deep! Yeah!

17 posted on 12/18/2002 10:44:27 AM PST by JohnnyZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
it's clear that director Peter Jackson has tilted the balance decisively against the hobbits and in favor of the traditional action heroes of the Tolkien trilogy. The star is now clearly Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and the hobbits spend much of the movie away from the action.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but most of the action in "T3" is with Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and the Rohirrim. The focus of the action is the battle against Sauroman. Frodo and Sam's quest, at this stage of the story, is more subdued, action-wise. In fact, in terms of sheer pages, the Aragorn/Rohan aspect of The Two Towers takes up more space than Frodo and Sam's journey.

From Ebert's comments, I wonder if he has even read the "Lord of the Rings." If he hasn't, he has no right to judge whether Peter Jackson has strayed from Tolkein's intent or not.

18 posted on 12/18/2002 11:17:08 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Robert Ebert

Saw Lord of the Rings

He wrote his review and spelled his words right. However, it does appear he has forgotten how to read.
19 posted on 12/18/2002 11:23:37 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
I'm going to see this film at 2:30 CST...I'll post my impressions.
20 posted on 12/18/2002 11:26:49 AM PST by HumanaeVitae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson