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

Skip to comments.

Rings Sequel is Tower of Power
The Sun (UK) ^ | 12/12/2002 | Johnny Vaughn

Posted on 12/12/2002 10:47:00 AM PST by Texas2step

HE'S sharp, smart, funny - and he's The Sun's new movie critic.

Yes folks, a star is Vaughan as Johnny Vaughan, 36, joins Britain's brightest newspaper. And today he kicks off with a review of the biggest release of the year, the new Lord Of The Rings epic The Two Towers.

Johnny will be bringing you his passionate views about films each week in his new column, starting tomorrow.

Rings sequel is Tower of power


Turning ugly ... an Orc
soldier bares his fangs

RELATED STORIES
Good Lord, it's Nicola's 2 towers!

LORD Of The Rings: The Two Towers is not so much a sequel as a second act.

Those who were left wanting more at the end of LOTR 1 will be delighted to learn that The Two Towers picks up
exactly where the last movie left off.

There are no cheesy scrolling words running up the screen giving us a bit of back story, no potted flashbacks to remind us what went before.

For the first time in the history of sequels we’re plunged straight back into the action.

That shows enormous confidence from director Peter Jackson. He’s so sure that anyone who saw Fellowship Of The Ring will return to see The Two Towers that he’s not even wasting screen time on people who want to join the story a third of the way through.

He has publicly stated that “the amount of people going to see The Two Towers without seeing Fellowship would be fairly minute. If you can’t spend three dollars to rent it before you see Two Towers there’s no point in going.”

That’s a ballsy public statement to make when you’re a third of the way into a trilogy that cost £200million.

The Star Wars prequels were about as ironcast a box office smash as you could have. But even George Lucas didn’t make each one incomprehensible to anyone who hadn’t seen the one before. So the big questions: Was it worth the gamble? Does it live up to the promise of Fellowship? Will it leave moviegoers holding their breath for part three?
Yes, yes and hell yes.


Barking ... Pippin and
Merry spot a talking tree


This is a truly great film, and that’s coming from someone who never read the book and, like many of you, only saw the first film on video.

I had always pigeonholed Tolkien enthusiasts as kind of Dungeons And Dragons/sci-fi/progressive rock/quiet loner types.

I was wrong, very wrong, shamefully wrong.

I was also wrong in thinking the story was an incredibly complicated one — another reason I feared reading the book. It’s actually pretty simple and brilliantly expressed in the film’s production notes:

“The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy chronicles the epic struggle for possession of the infamous One Ring. If returned to its creator The Dark Lord Sauron the Ring will give him the power to enslave the world.”

So why does a basic “good vs evil, baddie wants to destroy the world, goodies doing their best to stop him” type of story take nine hours of screen time, or 1,400 pages, to tell?

One word: Epic. More epic than any story ever made into film.

In fact, if you add The Godfather trilogy, all five Star Wars films and Gone With The Wind together, then multiply them by Gandhi, you’re still not coming close to the epic quality, depth and attention to detail of this famous trilogy.

So what happens in this second instalment? Well, for those of you who have already seen part one, what I’m about to tell you will make sense.

For those of you who haven’t, I strongly suggest you go down to your local video shop, rent or buy The Fellowship Of The Ring, and watch it.


Spear we go ... troops get
set for epic fight scene

Then read on, pausing only to pick up a phone and book yourself a seat for Two Towers on your local cinema’s credit card line.

In fact, at this point everyone reading should do that anyway, ’cos by the time you finish reading this review, the lines are all going to be engaged.

Very briefly, because I just want to whet your appetites, not spoil it for you, the film opens with The Fellowship, a band of humans, elves, hobbits and one axe-wielding dwarf, divided.

Lost Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) are continuing their hazardous journey to Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring borne by Frodo.

They capture the grotesquely sympathetic Gollum (Andy Serkis). He is a former keeper of the Ring, forever warped by its evil power, who promises to take them to the Black Gates of Mordor in return for his release.


Sharp end ... for Legolas,
Gimli and Aragorn

Meanwhile, the other remnants of The Fellowship, the awesome trio of warrior Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Gimli the dwarf (John Rhys-Davies) and elf archer Legolas (Orlando Bloom), encounter the besieged Rohan kingdom where King Theoden (Bernard Hill) has fallen under evil wizard Saruman’s spell.

I won’t go into the minutiae of Middle-earth politics, or reveal too much about the love triangle between Aragorn, Arwen (the flawless Liv Tyler — so attractive she makes pointed ears look somehow alluring) and Eowyn (the king’s niece).

I won’t even try to enlighten you as to the hows and whys of Gandalf’s reincarnation as a white wizard, after a fight with a 200ft dragon, ending in a bruising encounter on a snowcapped mountain top — you don’t need to know that now.

All you need to know is that everyone comes together at the end for cinema’s greatest ever battle scene.

And I don’t say that lightly. The scale and brutality of the conflict that rages for the last hour of this film makes the opening forest battle in Gladiator look like a tear-up between the Ground Force team and some irate shoppers at a garden centre in the Cotswolds.

So how good is this film? Well, put it this way. Fact is, for the entire two hours and 59 minutes the only thing that mattered in my life was a plain gold ring on a chain round the neck of a short guy with pointed ears and hairy feet.


Grand scale ... army's
assault on Helm's Deep

I was more worried about Frodo losing his Ring than I was about my best man losing my wife’s on our wedding day.

As some of you may already know, this is my first film column for The Sun.

But what you probably don’t know is that my new bosses were so keen to get this review in today’s paper that I’m working to a brutal deadline.

The upshot of this is that I haven’t had time to devise my own unique rating system.

So, in the absence of one — tick all the boxes, 10/10, 100 per cent, five stars, “The must-see film of the year, you’ll love it”, A+, Outstanding, first class with honours, Black Belt ....



TOPICS: Books/Literature; Music/Entertainment; TV/Movies; The Hobbit Hole
KEYWORDS: fotr; lordoftherings; lotr; thetwotowers; tolkien; ttt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: ecurbh
I can't help you there either....
21 posted on 12/12/2002 2:06:56 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I was more worried about Frodo losing his Ring than I was about my best man losing my wife’s on our wedding day.
The difference is, if Frodo loses the One Ring, it will be Hell on (Middle) Earth for the rest of eternity. On the other hand, if your best man loses your wife's wedding ring on your wedding day, you'll only think it is.
22 posted on 12/12/2002 2:43:17 PM PST by Gordian Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ecurbh
You should rent it. (Gandhi) Definitely an epic; the ending was sad even though I knew from history what it would be. Ben Kingsley played the title role as I recall and it was an excellent performance.
23 posted on 12/12/2002 2:46:19 PM PST by Gordian Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade
Heh. And in the end, it might save you to lose it!
24 posted on 12/12/2002 2:47:16 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I can't forgive his calling a Balrog a "dragon" and the Balrog isn't 200 feet by any stretch. Did he even SEE the first film?

;)
25 posted on 12/12/2002 9:57:26 PM PST by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Wow.... he did call the Balrog a dragon.... I didn't see that before! oh dear.
26 posted on 12/13/2002 5:44:44 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I saw the dragon comment and really wondered if Jackson had changed something there. Well, I can forgive that misnomer for the rest of the article is good. I can't wait. And I really can't wait to get the DVD, as I will want to watch it many times.

My daughter is coming to the end of her semester in college, and is sending me emails like,

the grades..in the dark....they are coming....

lol, Every exchange between us has some reference to the movie. She's as excited as I am.
27 posted on 12/13/2002 6:58:34 AM PST by My back yard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: My back yard
They are coming, indeed! Glad you have someone to share the excitement with! - coming soon! 4 days, 16 hours!
28 posted on 12/13/2002 7:21:21 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
"Dragons" as a term in literature covers all manner of monsters. If he doesn't know what a Balrog is, the fire-breathing, horned monster he sees is very dragon-like. I have heard professors call Beowulf a "dragon."
29 posted on 12/19/2002 6:17:17 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Erm....if your professor called Beowulf a "dragon", then you should definitely drop his class post-haste. Beowulf was a man. He killed a dragon at the end of his life.

In no sense is the Balrog a dragon, either. It's a demon of fire and shadow. Dragons are "worms", ie, snakes: they have to be reptilian to qualify as "dragons" in all but the very loosest usage of the word.

The reviewer was just confused, because in the scenes where they fall, you can see the fire and wings of the Balrog, but not much of the body. It does look a bit dragon-ish, if you forget what it looked like standing on the bridge.

30 posted on 12/21/2002 3:30:31 AM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
OK, Grendel, not Beowulf. Shoot me. It's been many years. I also took a Tolkein course in the seventies which pulled together lots of ancient stories, of Gilgamesh, the Orlando series, and Tolkein's translations of the romances.

"Dragon" is, however, a catchall monster term you encounter throughout literature, particularly if it has biblical imagery. Even the devil is "that old dragon." When hubby was discussing the battle falling through the mountain, he referred automatically to the Balrog as a dragon because of the associated fire. I've also seen many old illustrations of dragons that include horns on the head. Now, he knows that a dragon more typically is a lizard-like creature, but the term was one we could both understand.

31 posted on 12/21/2002 5:51:37 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 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