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: cardinal4
Sounds like he hasn't even read the books. Amazing. How can he know whether it remains true to the books if he hasn't read them?
81 posted on 12/18/2002 5:48:02 PM PST by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
ROFL ! This is classic !

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.

ROFL . . "Fried Green Fellowship" (coming soon to selected theatres, and you better just pray to G_d your thatre isn't selected)

82 posted on 12/18/2002 5:48:07 PM PST by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Media Insurgent
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I admit, I didn't even finish reading the review. At the point I read that I assumed the rest of it was drivel.
83 posted on 12/18/2002 5:50:56 PM PST by 2Jedismom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: 2Jedismom; HairOfTheDog
Are those undead riders still chasing after the ring in this one?
84 posted on 12/18/2002 5:57:17 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Yep. Got better horses.... with wings.
85 posted on 12/18/2002 5:59:25 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Cool. Prolly see it Saturday.
86 posted on 12/18/2002 6:00:08 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: anka
Oh man, I'm reading all of these reviews and will have to wait until Saturday to see it. I'm seriously thinking of calling in sick to work tommorrow.
87 posted on 12/18/2002 6:02:59 PM PST by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
I guess Peter Jackson should have shown Arwen's ta-tas and had Gimli use...

This is painting a BEAUTIFUL picture in my mind...

88 posted on 12/18/2002 6:04:27 PM PST by Isle of sanity in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
There is a really thoughtful review of this film by Rod Dreher at National Review Online.
89 posted on 12/18/2002 6:11:32 PM PST by ricpic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
The visuals are better. Saw it first showing this morning. It's magnificient. Samwise Gamgee and Arwen are my favorites, this time... (I won't say more:-))
90 posted on 12/18/2002 6:14:05 PM PST by keri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Ebert is a lazy, ignorant reviewer with very little to say, as is obvious enough from this review

I have stopped paying attention to Ebert reviews for some time now. I have noticed over the last few years that he has gotten into the annoying habit of reviewing the movie that HE would have made, rather than the movie that is there before him. What he is basically saying is that Peter Jackson decided to focus on parts of the story that Roger Ebert would not have and so Peter Jackson must be wrong.

I'm going on Sunday, and I'm psyched about it and very much looking forward to a great movie.

91 posted on 12/18/2002 6:23:09 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
The keywords are better than the review -'I Grok Spock..' LOL!
92 posted on 12/18/2002 6:26:26 PM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
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.

Other than that whole Arwen-isn't-Glorfindel-at-the-Ford thing. That has been a consistent complaint among we Tolkien fanatics.

93 posted on 12/18/2002 6:36:34 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I just got back from seeing the premiere showing of LOTR:TT. It it an awesome movie, nearly surpassing FOTR. I loved it! Can't wait for LOTR:ROTK!!
94 posted on 12/18/2002 6:43:17 PM PST by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2Jedismom
What a bald-faced moron. He obviously hasn't read Tolkien's account of the Siege of Gondor.

Ummm...the Siege of Gondor comes in the third installment. It was the Battle of Helms Deep that so enjoyably took up about a sixth of the film.

95 posted on 12/18/2002 6:45:30 PM PST by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sinclair
The books always struck me that they were full of battles and strife, the whole epic was about the evil attractiveness of power and how good beings could seduced into doing evil with it(in the pretext of doing good). Political power is often the same way. I don't know what Ebert was smoking to cause him to say what he said in his review.
96 posted on 12/18/2002 6:49:23 PM PST by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ewing
The keywords are better than the review -'I Grok Spock..' LOL!

I know what you mean, I like "Show Me the Buffet". Obviously someone is a John Pinette fan. I didn't know there were so many of us.

97 posted on 12/18/2002 7:11:59 PM PST by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I know it!! I know when the seige occurs, but Ebert thinking Tolkien is a gentle medievalist or whatever is so stupid! Tolkien wrote some pretty gruesome stuff...

I read the books for the first time when I was 12. I'm 40 now. I've read the entire trilogy countless times, but 9 times in just the last 11 months. I've also read the Silmarillion once and the Hobbit twice in the same amount of time, plus snippets of the Unfinished Tales.

This is a picture of me (second from the left). I came in 2nd place in our local line party trivia contest!

I know when the Seige of Gondor is. ;-)

98 posted on 12/18/2002 7:19:52 PM PST by 2Jedismom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus
Your point is well taken. It does seem to me, having seen FOTR twice (the extended version is much better), and reading the reviews of TTT, that Jackson has sacrificed some of the character development and nuance of the trilogy in favor of slam-bam action adventure.

Some changes, such as leaving out the detour into the Old Forest and Bombadil, I could overlook because it wasn't relevant to the narrative. But, the half-assed way Merry and Pippin were introduced and the foreshortened segway at Bree were grating. Still, it was an excellent adaption given the time constraints.

99 posted on 12/18/2002 8:10:14 PM PST by jaime1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
bookmark bump
100 posted on 12/18/2002 8:12:56 PM PST by nutmeg
[ 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