Ebert's Review of The Two Towers

Sun Times ^ | Ebert

[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.

[2Jedismom]

Just by seeing the things that he's done with FOTR and TTT. I don't know him personally, no. :-)

But I'll bet you anything he has those heads flying.

[Imal]

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.

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.

I am embarrassed for Ebert. First, he demonstrates, by his own comments, that he hasn't read the books -- or at least failed to understand them if he did. Then he complains that the movie "misplaces much of the charm and whimsy of the books". Ebert is clearly in no position to make such a comment. He's phoning it in!

This sort of boilerplate, non sequitur criticism exposes Ebert for a fraud, and renders his review meaningless. Everyone has a bad day, but to turn in such a fundamentally flawed review on such a culturally, historically and financially monumental work as The Two Towers is the reviewer's equivalent of captaining the Titanic.

Movie reviewers are expected to understand the material they review. It is the ability to authoritatively critique movies that is the sole qualification for a film critic. To fail to establish that qualification is to fail as a reviewer.

As a consequence of this obnoxious and unprofessional review, Roger Ebert has lost quite a bit of credibility in my eyes, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who will react this way.

[ecurbh]

Ring Ping!!

[Cincinatus]

I think it may be you who are ignorant of "The Ring". Ebert may not be a Ring geek, but he's right in his criticism: the modest little hobbits (quintessential Englishmen) WERE the heroes.

The Lord of the Rings is portrayed on vast canvas, with many characters (including entire races, not just individuals), angles, and perspectives. To say that it's a story in which "hobbits are the heroes" is similar to summarizing the Old Testament as a story about "some wandering tribe that God chooses."

Ignorance is apparently in the eye of the beholder.

[ecurbh]

One of the scenes that hit me the hardest was when the men of Helm's Deep were suiting up for desperate battle. As the camera panned down a long row of burly men (and old men) preparing to fight, the view came upon a small sweet-faced young boy who couldn't have been older than twelve. Then the armorer placed a battle helmet on his head, and the camera moved on...

That part really got me too. And seeing the husbands and fathers say goodbye to their families in the caves before taking their place on the wall. Excuse, I am verklempt again just thinking about it. Jackson really managed to capture the human toll of war.

[Smedley]

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.

Don't forget about the black elves. Where were the black elves? (probably donimating the elvish weight-room)

[My2Cents]

Hmm..that raises a point. The only "black" folks in the LOTR are the Nazgul. Not very PC.

[My2Cents]

I agree with you. Whimsy?! Hardly. LOTR is a saga of good vs. evil, and particularly a saga about honor, devotion to comrades, sacrifice, hope in the face of hopelessness, courage in the face of fear, dedication to something higher than oneself. The loftiness of these themes is inspiring. Too bad Ebert didn't read the books. His perspective on life itself is skewed because he spends too much time in darkened rooms watching junk churned out by Hollywood.

[SauronOfMordor]

Just saw it with my teen daughter.

Awesome

But it is NOT suitable for pre-teens (unless they're the sort who giggled through Blackhawk Down). The battle scenes are very bloddy and intense, and they occupy a good chunk of the movie

[Billthedrill]

Ebert is an idiot and should never have reviewed the movie, period. There is absolutely no excuse for the ridiculous blather he essays about a book he hasn't read, and in front of an audience that will so quickly see through it.

Saw it this morning. It is simply astounding. No spoilers, but the Ents kick butt...

[Silent Lion]

The task of making a movie out of a book that is so well loved must have been incredibly daunting. There are literally hundreds of passages and scenes that are going to be somebody's favorite, and some of them are going to have to be simplified, modified or deleted. I count it a minor miracle that Peter Jackson hit about 95% of my favorites out of the ballpark. I am so glad that they waited for the development of computer graphics before they made this film, because it they do a great job of bringing to life the look of the characters, surroundings and actions. Like any movie, deeper characterization suffers a little bit.

I liked many of the changes that PJ made in the first movie, including giving a Arwen a bigger roll and leaving Tom Bombidal on the cutting room floor.

My biggest quibble with the first movie was that Sauruman gets portrayed as a puppet of Sauron, rather than a would-be rival. With all the screen time given to Sauruman, they could have shown the complexity of the relationship with just a few dialogue changes. The subsequent duel between Gandalf and Sauruman looked a little bit like Star Wars goes to Middle Earth. Oh well, nothing's perfect.

Can't wait to see part 2.

[Thud]

I have the extended edition of the Fellowship DVD. The scale model of Isengard used for the Ents' attack on it was the size of rugby (football) field.

[el_chupacabra]

Keywords bump!

[weegee]

I suppose that Roger Ebert never bothered to write his own adaptation of the Lord Of The Rings because he knew that investors would never finance a trilogy of films about hobbits to be directed by Russ Meyer.

[anka]

REVIEW (SPOILER CAUTION):

Saw the midnight showing last night and saw it again @ 2 this afternoon.

First viewing I had a more critical eye and was on the lookout for deviations from the novel. quite a few, and it didn't help that I had two tolkien enthusiasts on either side of me ;)

Today, went alone and it was me and the movie and nothing else.

Favorite part(s) of the movie:

Gollum. You cannot help but feel pity for this lost soul and the struggle between Smeagol and Gollum. The 'scizophrenic' scenes (particularly the first one where Gollum calls Smeagol a murderer) made my eyes misty. When the 'dark-side' takes over and protects Smeagol from the 'trickses. of his master... very powerful stuff. Gollum, in my opinion, was 'spot-on' and an oscar is deserved for serkis.

Theoden. The breaking of Sauruman's spell over Theoden was a marvel to witness. Theoden's lament at Theodreds grave is another tear jerker. The only deviation i noticed (and this is only my opinion) is that the movie Theoden seems much more combatative (with his peers, Aragorn for instance) than in the novel.

Gandalf VS Balrog / Helms Deep / Ent March on Isengard. WOW. um, WOW. did I mention, WOW.
Pure, unadulterated, adrenaline rush!

My apologies for the incoherence... i feel myself replaying the movie in my head and am getting excited.

watching it again this friday night with another buddy.
great stuff.

[LenS]

Like others here, I'm really starting to doubt that Mr. Ebert ever read the books. Or, perhaps even worse, he read the books and totally failed to grasp what he was reading. But he is a big-time liberal, so expecting him to have any reading comprehension skills would be a bit much.

[ChadGore]

I just got back from seeing it, and I was BLOWN AWAY !

Beyond distription.

[Media Insurgent]

"...would no doubt startle the gentle medievalist J.R.R. Tolkien."

That phrase doesn't even make sense. There was nothing gentle about medieval times. It's like calling someone a "gentle expert on Roman gladiators, or a "gentle scholar of Nazi Germany." Studying the material necessarily exposes one to a profound level of brutality.

Tolkien may have been a gentle person, but he certainly would not have been startled by the violence and death inherrent in depicting warfare in a quasi-medieval world. Ebert should read historical accounts of the conflicts between the Vikings and Saxons and reassess his opinion of what might startle a medieval scholar.

[LenS]

Ebert's "whimsy" reference reminds me of last year's review -- back then I got the impression that Ebert was confusing memories of The Hobbit with LOTR.