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 previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 next last
To: LdSentinal
The Contender was the worst pack of ham-handed, obvious, crude, clunky propaganda I ever did see. Absolutely see-through.
101 posted on 12/18/2002 8:22:38 PM PST by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Just saw it, great movie, and Gollum was done VERY well. Had the whole crowd giggling for a minute...JFK
102 posted on 12/18/2002 8:27:12 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
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.

SPOILER: In "Return of the King" the finale is a brutal affair, with the Dark Lord Sauron committing a gaffe, saying to the effect of the Hobbits only being "good as slaves", and appearing to espouse discrimination against dwarves. Elven civil rights attorneys then force Sauron to give up the One Ring and level Mount Doom, which is replaced by subsidized housing for the aggrieved minorities of Hobbits and dwarves.

The special effects are amazing in the final 5 hours of media agitation, including Sauron's grueling attempts to stave off defeat with apologetic appearances on HET (Hobbit Entertainment Television).

103 posted on 12/18/2002 8:29:39 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jaime1959
it wasn't relevant to the narrative

Well, there's another way of looking at it another way of looking at it

Bombadil does not move the story forward

Perfect description, and rings true with the pacing Jackson has for the film. In short, Tolkien recognizes a depth to time that is off the screen for Jackson. In moving the story along for box office value, the whole concept of power is shifted. Bombadil plays with the ring. Jackson is no Bombadil. There is no Bombadil for Jackson.

104 posted on 12/18/2002 8:30:37 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER
Had the whole crowd giggling

Gollum sugarcoated? Giggles of embarrassment? Gollum, in Tolkien, is a serious matter.

105 posted on 12/18/2002 8:32:00 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
Jackson should have shown Arwen's ta-tas

The story is a man's world: no ta-tas.

106 posted on 12/18/2002 8:35:08 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER
Just saw it, great movie, and Gollum was done VERY well. Had the whole crowd giggling for a minute...JFK

Yup. Had the same experience. Gollum was so well done, It didn't occurr to me to think about him being a CG character. And I'm not stretching that. And the theater broke up laughing just about every time Smeagle took to screan. It's amazing how you start to sympathize with the little toad. While Same and Frodo are talking about how they will be remembered, I found myself thinking, 'what about Smeagle?' I won't give away more than that; but, Gollum was my favorite part of the Hobbit and the LOTR series. And I find myself wishing like anything that Jackson would do a theatrical version of the Hobbit now to complete the set. Not holding my breath; but, oh it would be so sweet.

107 posted on 12/18/2002 8:39:34 PM PST by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Not sugar-coated, Gollum had genuine personality, some of the humor coming out in his schizophrenic episodes. I guess you just have to see it...JFK
108 posted on 12/18/2002 8:40:28 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER
I see Jackson has him come into his own then. Tolkien's Gollum is something more like the Joseph Conrad's "Secret Sharer."
109 posted on 12/18/2002 8:43:56 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; Havoc
Gollum really has a lot of facial expressiveness and the body language they managed to achieve was astounding; it created a character who nearly stole the show...JFK
110 posted on 12/18/2002 8:46:18 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: All
Just saw it.

Loved it.

Perhaps even a tad bit more than the first(!?).

The crowd loved it. Funny too how you had your 'factions' in the audience. One group of teenage girls clapped every time Legolas showed his face. (Altho watching him mount that horse made *me* gasp!)

Another bunch laughed extra loud at every one of the Dwarf Gimli's lines. (Personal favorite -- "We can take 'em".)

Great, great movie. I'll see it again.

111 posted on 12/18/2002 8:48:31 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides; BenLurkin
Gollum really has a lot of facial expressiveness and the body language they managed to achieve was astounding; it created a character who nearly stole the show...JFK

FYI

112 posted on 12/18/2002 8:50:35 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER
Gollum . . . a character who nearly stole the show

No Christopher Lee then.

113 posted on 12/18/2002 8:51:42 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
My favorite line "Toss me. But don't tell the elf" The theater was in an uproar over that one.
114 posted on 12/18/2002 8:55:46 PM PST by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
:-D
115 posted on 12/18/2002 8:57:11 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER; All
Yep. I wanted sooooo badly to see it again immediatly. I can only think of a handful in recent history that have done that to me. I can't compare because they all have their own place in my collection now. Anyhoo. Got to get to bed. All of you should see this movie. I'd send everyone I know to see it. And I can't think of too many movies I'd say that about either. It's a must see. If you don't see it on the big screen, you'll be disgusted with yourself, trust me. The scenery is breathtaking. And I almost wish I'd gone to indianapolis to see it on one of the monstrous screens there. I remember seeing Star Trek II on the big screen. It's ok on a tv; but, the impact of the battles on the big screen are unreal. And I'm still kicking myself for not seeing Titanic or Braveheart in the theater. Awsome. Incredible. Breathtaking. Fantastic in scope and truth to the original book. Ok, I'm going to bed before I spend all night talking about it in which case I could have gone to see it again. :) Night.

"We wants it. But the master has been good to us..."

116 posted on 12/18/2002 9:07:51 PM PST by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | 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.

Yeah, right, Ebert. Obviously you didn't read the part in the Red Book where the enemy had beheaded dead soldiers of Gondor and were casting the multilated heads over the walls of Minas Tirith. "Gentle". What an effing ignoramus.

117 posted on 12/18/2002 10:04:13 PM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
That is what I have been reading and hearing. I am intruiged! I am planning to see the movie on Saturday. Thanks for the post!
118 posted on 12/18/2002 10:24:25 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
I can't help but think of Attack of The Clones when hearing the name Christopher Lee. Such a distinguished actor, and the best name they can come up with for his character: DOOKU!

Oh the humanity. No wonder his character turned to the dark side.

119 posted on 12/18/2002 10:26:57 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
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.

Good. The relationship between Frodo and his "friend" was beginning to get a bit creepy.

120 posted on 12/18/2002 10:31:11 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 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