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 last
To: Cincinatus
He told a tale in which modest little hobbits were the heroes.

Amazing how he can get this part so damned wrong....

121 posted on 12/18/2002 10:41:55 PM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
and yet I am in awe of the true students of the [story].

That's one of the nicer things he wrote.

He writes as if he were sitting on a tack through the viewing, and hasn't gotten over the nuisance pain yet.

122 posted on 12/18/2002 11:41:17 PM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

It would have helped ol' Rog if he'd known, say, by reading the whole book, that Aragorn inherits a kingdom by the end of it, and that the progress of the four hobbits, or the scope of the tale, in The Lord of the Rings simply cannot be compared to Bilbo Baggins' journey through The Hobbit.

123 posted on 12/18/2002 11:45:12 PM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
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.

He hasn't read it. And you make so much sense that if he read what you wrote, I'm sure his head would explode because he wouldn't have room to process the simple, galling truth of it.

Who pays Ebert? There's a better (MUCH better) FReeper review from the Dec. 18, 12:01 AM showing, posted on FR now -- and there have been a lot of other FReeper reviews that reveal a mature depth of understanding, analysis, and insight regarding Tolkien's masterpiece being translated onto the silver screen.

124 posted on 12/19/2002 12:23:07 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
myself wishing like anything that Jackson would do a theatrical version of the Hobbit now to complete the set.

I saw an interview with PJ sometime in the latter half of '02 and I thought I heard him say he was considering this.

125 posted on 12/19/2002 12:26:00 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
The Contender was the worst pack of ham-handed, obvious, crude, clunky propaganda I ever did see. Absolutely see-through.

Agreed. And the worst thing about it was that ot was released in October, 2000, just several weeks before the presidential election.

126 posted on 12/19/2002 12:29:37 AM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: BADROTOFINGER; eureka!
I bought tickets through http://www.fandango.com (they add a $1 processing fee per ticket), and will pick them up today for a Sunday viewing, so I don't have to stand in line the day of the show and am guaranteed a seat (with my friends).
127 posted on 12/19/2002 12:29:46 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I love your post #39.

Sauron as Rush Limbaugh. Mercy.
128 posted on 12/19/2002 12:30:28 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ecurbh
Thank you for so faithfully pinging me to these threads.
129 posted on 12/19/2002 12:38:30 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dark Nerd
I just hope Mr Jackson includes the "Cleansing of the Shire" at the end of ROTK - four armor-clad, battle-hardened Hobbits return home to find the Shire a socialist-style dictatorship

Unfortunately, he doesn't. He said that, early on, the Scouring of the Shire was out; that he felt it never made sense as a part of the movie presentation -- one reason being it would have made the movies too long. I think he, or one of the main movers in the filming project, even said he didn't like it in the book. Sad.

130 posted on 12/19/2002 12:41:50 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: LenS
back then I got the impression that Ebert was confusing memories of The Hobbit with LOTR.

Yup. And he hasn't given up his fixation on the one book (The Hobbit) he appears to have read.

131 posted on 12/19/2002 12:53:18 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GretchenEE; Dark Nerd
The Scouring is probably out -- but I'm hoping PJ might surprise us. I think he said something earlier this year about the ent attack on Isengard would not be shown in the TTT.
132 posted on 12/19/2002 12:55:32 AM PST by John Farson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Thanks for alerting the thread readers to the importance of reading the keywords. I laughed out loud several times. ... SHOWMETHEBUFFET DOESNTKNOWTOLKIEN DIDNTREADTHEBOOKS SISKELWASBETTER to name a few
133 posted on 12/19/2002 12:59:29 AM PST by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
not sugarcoated.
i think most of the laughs came from some of the 'uninitiated' who don't understand the significance of gollum/smeagol. for me (hope i'm not being facetious), there were a couple of un-comfortable laughs and genuine pity felt for the character.
when gollum and smeagol are arguing and gollum calls smeagol a murderer... heartbreaking
134 posted on 12/19/2002 4:13:42 AM PST by anka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: GretchenEE
I saw an interview with PJ sometime in the latter half of '02 and I thought I heard him say he was considering this.

Oh to imagine :)

Am getting feedback from co-workers this morning that went to see it at another theater last night. All bowled over.

135 posted on 12/19/2002 5:18:37 AM PST by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Perfect is the enemy of good.
136 posted on 12/19/2002 12:17:49 PM PST by jaime1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: jaime1959
I think it was Salvador Dali who said perfection is unattainable, that's why we aim for it.
137 posted on 12/19/2002 12:54:17 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
If I recall correctly, there is a moment in the Helm's Deep battle in the book when the orcs start slinging the severed heads of the defenders they have killed back over the walls into the keep as a tactic intended to create despair. "Gentle medievalist" indeed!
138 posted on 12/19/2002 9:15:05 PM PST by the lost emperor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the lost emperor
"Gentle medievalist" indeed!

Tolkien understood, in a way that Ebert never will, just how serious the battle against evil really is.

Ebert was shaped by the mold of morally relative postmodernist thought. Unless he can overcome that -- which is doubtful -- he will never "get it" when it comes to Tolkien.

139 posted on 12/19/2002 9:56:26 PM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


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