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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last
To: My2Cents
Apparantly he didn't read the same LOTR that most of us have read. His review shows a complete lack of understanding of the story line. I've read the series every year since I was 10 years old (I'm 45 now). I think he rented one of the older movies that are now on video tape and wrote his review based on that. There's no way he could have read the books that Tolkien wrote, saw the movies that have recently been made and come to the conclusions that he came to in his review. The job(s) that have been done with this set of Ring movies has been as close to exemplary as you can get given the time constraints a file will place on you.
21 posted on 12/18/2002 11:27:35 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
This guy has always been an effete liberal wimp. Siskel was far better.
22 posted on 12/18/2002 11:29:54 AM PST by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
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.

Amen -Ebert doesn't want this film to win any major awards because that might validate the fact that most of what comes out of WhorryWood is crap.

I guess Peter Jackson should have shown Arwen's ta-tas and had Gimli use the F-word in every other sentence, and blamed Frodo's broken home for the whole ring problem. Now that would have been good cinema and worthy of an Oscar or two.
23 posted on 12/18/2002 11:32:42 AM PST by AD from SpringBay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Here’s a little tidbit from the Village Voice's (of course) review of “Two Towers”:

Speaking of double consciousness, the tender love between the hobbits Frodo and Sam is, as noted by Michael Musto two issues back, pretty much a given. But those joining the epic in medias res may be puzzled by the other meaningful looks. Is the sensitive elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) cruising hunky Aragorn? Fellowship, to be sure…

24 posted on 12/18/2002 11:35:32 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com for links to all available online reviews.
25 posted on 12/18/2002 11:37:48 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
I agree with you, Leatherneck. The thing that is remarkable about the job Peter Jackson and his crew did on these movies (at least FOTR, last year -- haven't seen TTT yet), is that the most devoted fans of Tolkein and the books were the most pleased with the films, almost unanimously. It took a person who loved the books to be able to do what Jackson has done. Ebert's opinion is inconsequential.
26 posted on 12/18/2002 11:38:45 AM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
"I'm going to see this film at 2:30 CST...I'll post my impressions."

Enjoy. I'm going to wait until the crowds go down after the holidays. Happy viewing...

27 posted on 12/18/2002 11:38:45 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: js1138
78 reviews available today at rottentomatoes.
28 posted on 12/18/2002 11:39:06 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
"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?

We'll see tonight. The smart money is on Ebert being full of it. When I saw the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I at first felt that Peter Jackson had been less true to the story than he could have been. However, after both reading the series again, as well as seeing the extended version on DVD, I have to say that Jackson did a stellar job. For theatrical audiences, you simply must abbreviate a story of this length. Jackson has managed to condense and adapt without making a complete botch of a movie. This in and of itself deserves credit, but when you consider his creation is to the liking of both Tolkien fans and the average movie-goer alike, you realize just how big of a stunt he pulled off.

29 posted on 12/18/2002 11:40:26 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138; cardinal4
Thanks js. card, see #25 ...
30 posted on 12/18/2002 11:40:47 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Rottentomatoes is the best movie site in existence. They even collect online reviews for old movies. Their only failing is they don't archive reviews. If the host deletetes the review, it's gone. If you need membership in the host website, you've got to join.
31 posted on 12/18/2002 11:46:27 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
He did an absolutely fabulous job.

He picked out just the right parts and remained amazingly true to the spirit of the book in the short 3 hours that he had.

32 posted on 12/18/2002 11:52:39 AM PST by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Hey Ebert .... his name is Gollum, not 'The Gollum'.....
33 posted on 12/18/2002 11:55:15 AM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
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.

Don't forget the Ebert is a lefti-commie at heart. Remember hsi review of the liberal trash, "The Contender"? He called it a gutsy movie that told the truth and gave it 4 stars.

Ebert gave the first movie 3 stars and now the second. He's an idiot.

34 posted on 12/18/2002 11:55:49 AM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
From reading this review, I would say Ebert has not read the trilogy, but then he complains that Jackson didn't stay true to Tolkien. Huh?
35 posted on 12/18/2002 11:58:37 AM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
LOL!

Ian McKellan I guess???
36 posted on 12/18/2002 12:00:06 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dead
Is the sensitive elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) cruising hunky Aragorn? Fellowship, to be sure…

LOL! It's always fun to see the results of people who approach literary deconstructionism through the lens of promiscuous homosexuality.

37 posted on 12/18/2002 12:06:23 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
You know, I was planning on doing the same thing, but so many theaters are reel hopping this flick (showing on multiple screens) that crowding might not be a big issue. If you get the free time early, you might go check it out...JFK
38 posted on 12/18/2002 12:08:29 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
I said it a year ago, that if Peter Jackson had wanted LOTR/FOTR to win the Oscar for Best Picture, he should have had Frodo suffering from a mental illness, Sam have AIDS, Gandolf be a Latino (Gandolfo), Merry and Pippin as gay lovers, Gimli as a bluecollar activist against corporate elven greed, Arwen do a nude scene, and Sauron be played by Rush Limbaugh.
39 posted on 12/18/2002 12:18:40 PM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Hey Ebert .... his name is Gollum, not 'The Gollum'..

He probably calls Batman, "the Batman."

40 posted on 12/18/2002 12:20:18 PM PST by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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